European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 33 of 67 · 2,007 total
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy and Others
Procedural order from the UPC Local Division Helsinki in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3295663. AIM Sport Development AG sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to amend its Statement of Claims and under Rule 305 RoP to add a new defendant, TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited. The Court granted the application, allowing the amendments and the addition of the new defendant, while giving the existing defendants three months from the date of the order to lodge their Statement of Defence.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to classify certain information related to ongoing FRAND license negotiations as confidential and restrict its disclosure in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 780 758. Motorola Mobility LLC opposed the application, arguing that most of the information originated from its own parent group, Lenovo, and there was no justification for restricting a party's access to its own information. The Local Division Munich rejected the application in its entirety.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. against multiple defendants including Alpinestars S.p.A. regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Dainese applied to extend the deadline for filing its Defence to Counterclaims for revocation and Reply to statements of defence filed by Defendants 2 and 6 until February 27, 2025, to coordinate with pending EPO opposition proceedings. The Judge-Rapporteur granted the application, finding that the extension promoted procedural efficiency while preserving the adversarial rights of all parties, and invited the parties to submit a joint request for alignment of future procedural deadlines.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The Local Chamber Mannheim found infringement of the patent, dismissed the revocation and FRAND counterclaims, and ordered injunctive relief, recall, information/accounting, and provisional damages of EUR 250,000, subject to a EUR 10 million security.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a revocation counterclaim and a FRAND counterclaim seeking a court-determined license. The Local Chamber Mannheim found the patent infringed and valid, partially granted the infringement action, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and dismissed the FRAND counterclaim, ordering the defendants to bear the costs.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Motorola Mobility LLC against a second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 brought by Ericsson in proceedings before the Local Division Munich. The court allowed the preliminary objection, holding that a preliminary objection can be raised against a counterclaim for revocation, and that Article 33(2) UPCA applies to prevent the same parties from bringing the same validity dispute twice before the same division (lis pendens). The second counterclaim for revocation was rejected as inadmissible.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court on 5 February 2025 in an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation concerning European patent n° 3669828. The order summons the parties to an oral hearing scheduled for 11 February 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Munich, and provides standard procedural information regarding review, public access, audio recording, and consequences of absence.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
The Local Division Munich allowed a preliminary objection filed by Motorola Mobility LLC against a second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 brought by Ericsson. The court held that a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP can be raised against a counterclaim for revocation, and that Article 33(2) UPCA applies a fortiori when the same parties bring the same action twice before the same division, resulting in the second counterclaim being rejected as inadmissible due to lis pendens.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, and Warmcook
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action filed by Hurom Co., Ltd against NUC Electronics entities and Warmcook regarding European Patent EP3155936. The defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation, and Hurom had applied to unconditionally amend the patent. The order addresses Hurom's request under Rule 36 RoP for further exchanges of written pleadings after the defendants raised new arguments on infringement in their Rejoinder.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3069315. Following a settlement between the parties, the court allowed the withdrawal of the infringement action filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and the jointly filed nullity counterclaim brought by the Xiaomi entities and other defendants. The court declared the proceedings terminated, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed a 40% reimbursement of court fees.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Order of the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the withdrawal of an infringement action and a jointly filed counterclaim for revocation following a settlement between the parties. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, set the value of the dispute at EUR 8,000,000, and ruled on the allocation of court fees and costs.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG
STADAPHARM GmbH applied under Rule 262.1.b RoP to access the written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings (UPC_CFI_698/2024) between Accord Healthcare companies and Novartis AG concerning a declaration of non-infringement action related to EP2501384 (nilotinib). The Milan Central Division dismissed STADAPHARM's application, finding that its interest in using the documents in parallel German preliminary injunction proceedings was outweighed by the need to safeguard the integrity of the UPC proceedings, and also dismissed STADAPHARM's objection regarding the digital signature on Novartis's written pleadings.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH & Others
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court amended its prior order of 23 December 2024 to add three named individuals to the group of persons authorized to access confidential information, while rejecting the request to grant a fourth individual (Ms. [...]) separate access.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG
STADAPHARM GmbH applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to access written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings (UPC_CFI_698/2024) between Accord Healthcare companies and Novartis AG concerning a Declaration of Non-Infringement action regarding EP2501384 (nilotinib). The Milan Central Division dismissed STADAPHARM's request, holding that the general interest of justice and integrity of the proceedings outweighed STADAPHARM's interest in accessing the documents, particularly given that Novartis had not yet filed any submissions and that granting access could interfere with Novartis's free legal defense in parallel German preliminary injunction proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Before the Local Chamber Mannheim, the parties — Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH as defendants — reached a settlement and jointly withdrew the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent No. EP 2 568 724. The withdrawal was filed after the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court heard a patent infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 548 648, owned by Rematec GmbH & Co KG, relating to a mill for comminuting grinding material such as wood chips. The court found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D3 and D9, particularly regarding the feature of ribs arranged at an angle to the circumferential direction. The patent was declared fully invalid, the infringement action was dismissed, and costs were split 3/4 to the claimant and 1/4 to the defendant.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a preparatory order issued by the Mannheim Local Division in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 476 616, brought by FUJIFILM Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order sets out preliminary views and questions ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 11–13 February 2025, addressing issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law for pre- and post-UPCA infringing acts, the value of the dispute, prior use defences, and validity questions concerning prior art documents WO 379 and US 952.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. & Others
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 793 430. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence with Counterclaim for Revocation to 11 March 2025, citing an agreement between the parties and the substantial workload of their legal counsels. The Presiding Judge granted the request, noting that the extension was only a maximum of one week and that the deadline for defendant 3 would be shortened.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 511 174, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese for its representatives at the oral hearing, which the Kodak defendants opposed. The court allowed FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense but declined to make the interpretation costs part of the proceedings' costs.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Infringement proceedings and counterclaims for revocation concerning European Patent EP4070727 were withdrawn by all parties before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague. All parties consented to the withdrawal and indicated no cost decision was requested. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant.
C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell
C-Kore Systems Limited filed an infringement action against Novawell before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 265 793, and Novawell filed a counterclaim for revocation. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement on 10 December 2024, and jointly requested the Court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court confirmed the settlement, ordered that the proceedings and counterclaim be dismissed, kept the settlement details confidential, and noted the parties' agreement on costs with no order as to costs.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
This case before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerned European Patent EP4070727 owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. All parties requested withdrawal of their respective claims, including the infringement claim and counterclaims for revocation. The court allowed the withdrawals, granted Dexcom's request for reimbursement of 20% of court fees, and set the value of the actions at EUR 4,000,000.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP4070727 before the Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. All parties subsequently requested withdrawal of their respective claims and consented to the closure of proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd. et al.
Qualcomm Incorporated filed a patent infringement action on 17 July 2024 before the Local Division Munich against six defendants concerning European patent EP 2 286 325. After reaching a settlement with Defendant 1 (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings), Qualcomm withdrew the action on 17 January 2025 and applied for a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of €18,600.00 to the Claimant.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sued Kodak entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately revoked the patent in all Contracting Member States, finding that the claimed subject-matter lacked novelty over prior art and that the proposed amendments added matter contrary to Article 123(2) EPC. The infringement action was dismissed, and FUJIFILM was ordered to bear the costs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
An order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court on January 27, 2025, granting a third-party access request under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Patent attorney Christian Läufer of Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB sought access to the written submissions and evidence in the revocation counterclaim proceedings, citing a professional interest for learning and training purposes. Neither the plaintiff (Avago Technologies) nor the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) objected, and the presiding judge granted the request, limited to the revocation counterclaim workflow.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an infringement action by Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. against three ASUSTek entities regarding European Patent No. 3 682 587. The defendants requested that the court decide on the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, and the court granted this request, also requesting the assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
SnowPixie Co., Ltd. (UPC_CFI_244/2024, UPC_CFI_786/2024) v.Ex Parte
In proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, the defendant in an infringement action sought security for costs of €257,000 against the plaintiff under Rule 158 EPGVerfO, citing the plaintiff's poor credit rating and operating losses. The plaintiff opposed the request and applied for legal aid. The court ordered reduced security of €62,600 and rejected the application for legal aid, finding that the plaintiff was capable of bearing its own costs and providing the ordered security.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, schedules an interim hearing via video conference for September 25, 2025, and an oral hearing in person for November 19, 2025, in Munich.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a cost reimbursement application following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 1 770 912. The applicant, Avago Technologies, withdrew its interim measures application after the court had already issued an ex parte order, and sought reimbursement of 20% of court fees. The court held that Rule 370.9(b) RoP applies analogously to the withdrawal of an application for interim measures and ordered reimbursement of €2,200.00.
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.