European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 31 of 67 · 2,007 total
Applicant v.Defendant (UPC_CFI_142/2025)
The applicant, as registered and sole proprietor of a European Patent, sought an order under Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP to preserve evidence (Saisie) against the defendant, alleging highly probable infringement of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a sufficient degree of probability that the asserted claim combination was infringed, and that the requested measures—including requiring the defendant to actively set up a full test environment—went beyond what Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP permit.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) addressed a representation issue in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Following a Court of Appeal order confirming that the claimant's appointed representative could not serve due to holding extensive administrative and financial powers within Suinno, the court declared the representative invalid, granted Suinno 30 days to appoint a new representative (who must ratify prior pleadings), and suspended procedural deadlines during that period.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This case concerns an application for preservation of evidence regarding European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1 before the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Copenhagen. The applicant sought release of seized CAD files to establish alleged patent infringement by the respondents' hybrid generator products (MPU 1000, 2000, and 3000). The court ordered that the CAD files be released to the applicant's representatives under confidentiality obligations, declined to impose the previously set penalty payments since the IT expert had eventually gained access to the encrypted computer, and postponed the decision on costs until the main proceedings.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 504 989 (titled 'VAPORIZATION DEVICE SYSTEMS'), owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. NJOY argued the patent was invalid for added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step, while Juul Labs sought to maintain the patent as granted or as amended. The Court revoked the patent as granted but maintained it in amended form based on Auxiliary Request 1, ordering each party to bear its own costs.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.Virdia Inc.
This is a revocation action before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The originally-named defendant, Virdia Inc., applied to substitute itself with International N&H Denmark ApS, to whom the patent had been assigned in 2024. The claimant agreed to the substitution, and the court granted the application, ordering that International N&H Denmark ApS replace Virdia Inc. as defendant and be bound by the proceedings as constituted.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
The Claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 742 231 by adding the Netherlands to the list of countries for which infringement was asserted and an injunction sought. The court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492, owned by Dyson Technology Limited, before the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, the proceedings were stayed and subsequently the Claimant requested withdrawal of the revocation action with the Defendant's consent. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 12,000) to the Claimant.
Fapa Vital AG v.Valentis Baltic UAB
Fapa Vital AG filed an application for provisional measures against Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP 1 978 949 before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement, the Applicant withdrew the application and requested reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees. The Court declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of EUR 6,600 (60% of the EUR 11,000 total Court fees), applying Rule 370.9(b) RoP by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492 owned by Dyson Technology Limited before the Central Division Milan. After the parties reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, the claimant requested withdrawal of the revocation action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 12,000).
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation). The court corrected its prior order of December 2, 2024 to include in the operative part the replacement of the counter-defendant (Heraeus Precious Metals) with Heraeus Electronics in the nullity counterclaim proceedings. The court also deferred its decision on Heraeus's Rule 362 RoP application seeking to bar the nullity counterclaim regarding the German part of the patent based on alleged res judicata from a prior Federal Patent Court decision, ruling that a decision before the main hearing on July 1, 2025 would jeopardize the unified proceedings under Rule 363.2 RoP.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application by the defendant under R 36 RoP for leave to file a further pleading. The defendant sought to introduce a January 6, 2025 decision of the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office that fully invalidated the corresponding Chinese patent based on the same prior art. The court rejected the application, finding the request was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese decision without justification, the decision was submitted only in Chinese rather than the German procedural language, and granting leave would prejudice proper preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (relating to a metal sintering preparation). The court corrected an earlier order from December 2, 2024 to include in its operative part the replacement of the counter-defendant (Plaintiff 2) by Plaintiff 1 in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The court further decided to defer its decision on Heraeus's Rule 362 RoP application—which sought to bar the revocation counterclaim regarding the German part of the patent on res judicata grounds—until after the main hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025.
GISELA MAYER GmbH v.N.J DIFFUSION SARL
GISELA MAYER GmbH, the defendant in a patent infringement action brought by N.J DIFFUSION SARL concerning European Patent EP2404516, filed a request under Rule 158 RoP seeking an order requiring N.J DIFFUSION to provide security for costs. The Local Division of Paris rejected the request, finding that N.J DIFFUSION had sufficiently demonstrated its positive financial situation and that the estimated recoverable costs (capped at 56,000 euros) did not pose a genuine risk of non-recovery. The court also rejected GISELA MAYER's subsidiary request for leave to appeal, holding that such orders are case management orders subject to panel review under Rule 333 RoP.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned a request by Panasonic Holdings Corporation to review the amount of court fee reimbursement following the withdrawal of its patent infringement actions against Xiaomi and OPPO entities. After an out-of-court settlement in late 2024, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims, and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge had granted only 40%, and the panel confirmed this decision, finding that the exceptionally complex nature of the dispute justified the reduced reimbursement under Rule 370.9(e).
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed patent infringement actions against Xiaomi and OPPO entities before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 024 163. After an out-of-court settlement at the end of 2024, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The rapporteur granted only 40%, and Panasonic sought review under Rule 333 EPGVerfO. The panel confirmed the 40% reimbursement, finding the case an extraordinary one under Rule 370.9(e) due to its exceptional complexity and the court's above-average workload.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Following an out-of-court settlement, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims concerning European Patent 2 197 132 and jointly requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the reporting judge's earlier order granting only a 40% reimbursement, holding that the exceptionally complex and intensively litigated nature of the dispute constituted an 'exceptional case' under Rule 370.9(e) EPGVerfO justifying a reduced fee refund.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., Luxendo GmbH, Bruker Nederland B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., NanoString Technologies Inc. (Kostenfestsetzung)
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings UPC_CFI_2/2023. The applicants (Bruker entities) sought cost assessment of €337,431.50 following the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the respondents' (10x Genomics and NanoString) application for interim measures. The court held that cost assessment proceedings are admissible following interim measures proceedings where the Court of Appeal has made a cost decision under Rule 242.1 EPGVerfO, and ordered the respondents to pay the assessed costs.
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Biolitec, an Austrian medical technology company and proprietor of European patent EP 3 685 783, sought provisional measures against the Lightguide companies for alleged infringement relating to their 'Infinity Side Fiber' product. The Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) dismissed the application, and Biolitec appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Biolitec failed to demonstrate that provisional measures were necessary and that proceedings on the merits could not be awaited.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024) concerning European Patent No. 3 866 051. The order addresses case management matters following an interim hearing, including the value of the infringement claim and counterclaim, partial withdrawal of claims, deadlines for submissions, and confirmation of the oral hearing date.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought a preliminary injunction against Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg, alleging that Speed Care's SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing infringed European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1, which protects clay-based hemostatic agents and devices. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by claim 1 of the patent in suit, and therefore could not establish infringement.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V. v.VusionGroup SA
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning court fees and procedural requirements for an appeal against a cost decision under Rule 221 RoP. VusionGroup SA sought a default decision alleging non-payment of an additional court fee by the Hanshow companies, and also sought dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible for lack of a separate notice of appeal and statement of grounds. The Court of Appeal rejected both applications, finding that the additional fee had been timely paid and that the application for leave to appeal itself constituted the notice of appeal and statement of grounds under Rule 221.2 RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Procedural order concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in which the Local Division Düsseldorf addressed the Applicant's request to exchange a deposited enforcement security of EUR 2,000,000 with a bank guarantee. The Court found the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Registrar to repay the deposit to the Applicant, subject to the expiry of the review period.
Bhagat Textile Engineers - Application for Access to Case File (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) v.Ex Parte
Bhagat Textile Engineers, a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to the case file of a counterclaim for revocation filed by Himson Engineering in an infringement action brought by Oerlikon Textile regarding patent EP2145848. Bhagat sought access to support its pending appeal and suspension request in a parallel proceeding where it had been found liable for infringement. The Milan Local Division rejected the application, holding that the information sought could be obtained through published court decisions or would be available with the final decision, and that the integrity of the proceedings outweighed Bhagat's interest in using the documents for defense in another forum.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement action UPC_CFI_216/2024 and revocation counterclaim UPC_CFI_556/2024 relating to European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152 owned by Cretes NV. Cretes sought to strike Hyler's Rejoinder submissions filed one day late, and alternatively to strike new non-infringement arguments, a new exhibit, and a new non-infringement claim introduced by Hyler. The court dismissed the primary request to strike the entire Rejoinder but granted the subsidiary request, excluding paragraphs 506-510, exhibit I.21, and the new non-infringement claim from further consideration.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. – Request for Inspection of Files (UPC_CFI_156/2024) v.Ex Parte
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of files under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in evidence preservation proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The court granted Chainzone's request for file inspection, finding no reasons to deny access, and allowed SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. ten days to identify any personal data to be redacted under data protection regulations.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH (EP 2 043 492)
Procedural order of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an infringement action and a revocation counterclaim relating to European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both parties informed the court that they had reached an out-of-court settlement and consented to the withdrawal of their respective claims, with all parties waiving their asserted claims. The court permitted the withdrawals under Rule 370.9.b.i of the Rules of Procedure and ordered each party to receive 60% reimbursement of court fees.
Aarke AB v.Sodastream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding it had infringed EP 1 793 917 and granting an injunction. Before the appeal was decided, Aarke applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP and sought reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision was necessary since Sodastream filed no comments or cost requests, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Aarke.
Network System Technologies LLC v.AUDI AG
This case concerns an application by Network System Technologies LLC (NTS) for the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions against AUDI AG. The Court of Appeal had previously ordered NST to provide security for costs totaling EUR 500,000 across three proceedings. After NTS withdrew the infringement actions and the Munich Local Division closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full release and return of the deposited security amounts.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG (Application for Release of Security)
Network System Technologies LLC (NST) applied to the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court for the release of security deposits it had previously been ordered to provide to Volkswagen AG in connection with infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. After NST withdrew its infringement actions before the Munich Local Division, which closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full return of the deposited amounts (totaling EUR 500,000) to NST.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V. filed an ex parte application to preserve evidence and inspect premises of P.T.S. Machinery B.V. based on alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 171 996. After the Court partly granted the application and an expert conducted an inspection, Mammoet sought to extend access to the expert's Written Report and its Attachments to four named employees. The Court granted the request, finding no significant risk of trade secret disclosure and noting the Defendant's non-objection.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.