European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 32 of 54 · 1,592 total
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Meril GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation in the Unified Patent Court, specifically concerning public access requests and party standing. The court ruled that self-representation is invalid for both lawyers/patent attorneys acting as parties and corporate officers holding high-level management roles. This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for legal independence under the UPC Agreement. The decision did not resolve the underlying merits of the case but instead issued an exceptional order, granting the involved parties a short window to appoint proper representatives and remedy procedural defects.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH
This UPC case focused on procedural jurisdiction and admissibility rather than the merits of infringement. The claimant, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, filed an infringement suit in Munich against S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International and Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH regarding patent EP 3 685 783. The respondents argued that the case was inadmissible because a similar action was pending elsewhere under Article 33(2) EPC. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, confirming Munich's jurisdiction by clarifying that an appeal does not constitute a 'case pending before another local chamber.'
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding party representation, specifically concerning confidentiality applications in an infringement case. The court upheld the finding that Suinno's representative lacked the necessary independence because he held extensive administrative and financial powers within his own company. This ruling reinforces strict interpretations of Art. 48 UPCA, emphasizing the absolute requirement for legal representatives to be sufficiently distant from their client's internal management.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
BSN Medical GmbH initiated infringement proceedings against Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V. concerning European patents EP 3 831 350 and EP 3 033 058. Rather than proceeding to a full trial, the parties successfully reached an out-of-court settlement agreement. The UPC court confirmed this agreement, ensuring that the sensitive terms of the settlement remain confidential, providing a clear example of how settlements are formalized within the unified patent system.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case, the respondents challenged the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringement acts that occurred before the UPC Agreement came into force. The court decisively rejected this objection, affirming its competence to hear claims concerning pre-UPC period activities. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the temporal scope of the UPC's jurisdiction, providing certainty for claimants pursuing historical infringement claims.
SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This UPC decision concerns a cost assessment application following the withdrawal of an interim measure request. The court found the claim admissible and necessary, establishing that costs incurred by the claimant were recoverable. Although the respondent successfully argued for reductions in specific time entries due to lack of plausibility, the overall reimbursement amount was significantly upheld.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this preliminary objection case, the UPC addressed a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding whether its authority extends to alleged patent infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA came into force. The Court decisively rejected the Defendants' argument that international treaty principles (VCLT) limited jurisdiction only to post-entry-into-force actions. This ruling confirms the broad scope of the UPC's competence in handling historical infringement claims, provided they fall under its jurisdictional basis.
SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a cost assessment application filed by SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH against Tiroler Rohre GmbH following the withdrawal of an interim measures request. The court found the claim admissible and granted the recovery of costs for the first instance, totaling 84,033.76 EUR. While the respondent argued that the fees were excessive, the court allowed minor reductions based on specific objections but ultimately upheld the majority of the claimed expenses.
Dolby International AB v.ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
In a procedural ruling in Düsseldorf, the UPC court allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Dolby International AB withdrew its infringement lawsuit against ASUS and related entities, while the defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 490 258 B1. The decision confirmed the termination of all proceedings but also addressed the allocation of costs, granting partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides based on mutual agreement.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS FRANCE Société à responsabilité limitée
Dolby International AB initiated an infringement lawsuit against several ASUS entities concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. Before the proceedings concluded, both parties reached an out-of-court settlement and agreed to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims. The Düsseldorf Local Division formally accepted these withdrawals, terminating the case while allocating specific costs and ordering partial reimbursement of court fees.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy, TGI Sport Virtual Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL (and potentially TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited)
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted AIM Sport Development AG leave to significantly amend its infringement action against the Supponor group. The amendments included adding a new defendant (TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited) and extending the scope of the claims to cover joint infringing acts in Spain. The court reasoned that these changes were necessary to prevent conflicting judgments, thereby promoting procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This procedural order in the UPC addressed a request by Ericsson (Defendants) to classify certain information related to pre-dispute license negotiations as confidential under R. 262A RoP. Ericsson sought protection for internal calculations and negotiation details, arguing they were highly confidential business secrets. The Court ultimately rejected this application entirely, emphasizing that parties cannot restrict their own access to their proprietary information during proceedings.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Omnia Retail S.r.l., Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy, Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K., Motocard Bike S.l.
In this procedural order, Dainese S.p.A. successfully requested an extension of deadlines related to its infringement action against several defendants. The UPC Court recognized the need for coordination between the ongoing litigation and parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO concerning EP3498117. By granting the extension, the court prioritized procedural fairness and efficiency over simply staying the case, ensuring all parties have adequate time to examine the EPO's decisions.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation successfully secured a finding of infringement against OPPO entities regarding its patent covering radio communication devices essential for the 4G standard. The court granted an injunction but made it conditional on Panasonic providing a €10 million security deposit, a common feature in complex SEP disputes within the UPC. Crucially, both the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and their FRAND counterclaims were dismissed by the Mannheim Local Court.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation successfully secured a finding of infringement against OPPO entities regarding its patent covering radio communication devices essential for the 4G standard. While the court granted an injunction, it made enforcement conditional on Panasonic providing a €10 million security deposit to the defendants. Crucially, both the revocation and FRAND counterclaims brought by OPPO were dismissed, strengthening Panasonic's position in this complex SEP dispute.
Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
This UPC decision addressed a preliminary objection raised by the defendant against a second counterclaim for revocation. The Court held that Art. 33 (2) UPCA requires an expansive interpretation of lis pendens, applying not only across different divisions but also within the same division. As the patent's validity was already subject to prior proceedings in the same court, the second counterclaim was rejected as inadmissible.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd; NUC Electronics Europe GmbH; Warmcook
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Hurom Co., Ltd for further written pleadings in an infringement action against NUC and Warmcook. Although the court initially declared specific new arguments regarding infringement inadmissible due to strict adherence to the established procedural workflow, it ultimately granted the request under Rule 36 RoP. This decision balances the need for efficient proceedings with the principle of fairness, allowing both parties a final chance to address key issues before the Interim Conference.
Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed jurisdictional issues concerning multiple actions on the same patent. The court held that if an action for revocation is already pending between the same parties in the same division, a subsequent counterclaim for revocation must be rejected as inadmissible (lis pendens). This decision clarifies the scope of Article 33(2) UPCA, preventing duplicative litigation and ensuring procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation initiated an infringement action against Meril GmbH and its affiliates concerning European patent EP 3669828. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a procedural order scheduling the case for an oral hearing on February 11, 2025. This initial step moves the complex dispute from filing to active litigation in Munich. This case is significant as it involves major players in the medical device industry utilizing the UPC framework.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This UPC decision in Mannheim concerns the procedural conclusion of a patent infringement and revocation case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation against various Xiaomi entities. The parties reached an agreement and subsequently withdrew both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for invalidity. Although the core dispute was settled, the court issued detailed rulings on the reimbursement of court fees based on the final determination of the dispute's value.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision from the Mannheim Local Court confirms the withdrawal of an infringement suit brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH. The case, which involved EP 2 568 724, was settled amicably between the parties after a final judgment had already been issued. The court formally closed the proceedings, confirming that each party would cover its own legal expenses.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Novartis AG, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited
This preliminary order addressed a request by STADAPHARM GmbH, an applicant in a non-infringement action, seeking access to the main proceedings documents. The Court clarified the scope of document inspection under Rule 262.1 b), stating that such requests are limited to existing filings and cannot preemptively cover all future submissions. The ruling underscored the importance of maintaining procedural integrity and protecting parties' rights to independent legal defense when balancing public transparency.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In a procedural order concerning confidential information in an infringement and revocation action, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed access rights to sensitive financial data. The Court clarified that parties must provide specific, concrete reasons when objecting to or requesting access to confidential information. It ultimately granted access to certain independent consultants involved in patent matters while rejecting a request for another party, emphasizing the strict adherence required under confidentiality rules.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Novartis AG, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited
This preliminary order addressed a request by STADAPHARM GmbH, an applicant in a non-infringement action, seeking access to the main proceedings documents. The Court clarified the scope of Rule 262.1 b), stating that such requests are limited to existing filings and cannot preemptively cover all future submissions. The ruling underscored the importance of maintaining procedural integrity over general public visibility when interests conflict, a key principle for transparency in UPC litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This UPC decision from Mannheim concerns a case between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and various Xiaomi entities. The core of the dispute—an infringement claim alongside a revocation counterclaim—was resolved through an agreement, leading both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Although the overall outcome was a settlement, the court issued specific rulings regarding the adjustment of court fees and costs based on the increased value of the dispute.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
In this UPC case, Rematec GmbH & Co KG sued Europe Forestry B.V. for infringing its patent covering a grinding mill used for crushing wood chips. The court ultimately declared the European Patent EP 2 548 648 fully invalid across several member states. This decision highlights the rigorous scrutiny applied by the UPC regarding inventive step, particularly when features are found to be obvious in light of existing technical literature.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request from Disney to extend deadlines for filing its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation in an infringement action. The court granted the extension based on the agreement reached between the parties, acknowledging the complexities arising from parallel litigation and counsel's travel schedules. This case highlights how procedural flexibility is utilized within the UPC framework to ensure fair process while managing complex international disputes.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request for simultaneous interpretation in a complex infringement case involving Fujifilm and Kodak. The Mannheim Local Division ruled that while ensuring fair trial rights necessitates allowing the Claimant to use an interpreter, it firmly rejected the request for the Court to fund these services. The court clarified that since Japanese is not an official language of the division, the financial burden rests solely with the party requesting the interpretation.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order in the Fujifilm v. Kodak infringement case sets the stage for a complex oral hearing at the UPC Mannheim Local Division. The court identified significant legal hurdles, particularly concerning retroactivity and the choice of law (UPCA vs. national law) for infringing acts that occurred before the UPCA's entry into force. Furthermore, the claimant must clarify precisely which countries are subject to the sought remedies. These points underscore the high level of complexity involved in cross-border patent litigation under the new UPC framework.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal of all claims in the case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom International Limited regarding patent EP4070727. Both parties mutually consented to drop their infringement and revocation actions. The court subsequently declared the proceedings closed, setting the value of the cases at EUR 4 million.
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.