European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 34 of 67 · 2,007 total
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
This order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by Snowpixie Co., Ltd. (defendant in infringement proceedings) for Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH (plaintiff in infringement proceedings) to provide security for costs under Rule 158 EPGVerfO. The court found Golf Tech's financial situation sufficiently precarious—given its operating loss and lack of adequate assets—to justify ordering security, but reduced the amount to €62,600 after applying equity considerations. The court also rejected Golf Tech's application for legal aid, finding it capable of bearing its own costs and the ordered security.
Sanofi SA and Others v.Zentiva France and Others
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court scheduling an interim conference and oral hearing in consolidated infringement actions concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, and Zentiva, k.s. (among other defendants in related proceedings). The Presiding Judge set the interim conference for 17 July 2025 and the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
Order
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 831 282. DexCom had initiated infringement proceedings against the Abbott companies before the Paris Local Division, which were met by a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. On appeal, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and the Abbott companies withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to closure of the proceedings.
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy & Microsoft Corporation
The Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to the written pleadings and evidence in an infringement action between Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The applicant argued a specific interest based on the status and representation rights of in-house European Patent Attorneys before the UPC, an issue addressed in prior orders in the proceedings. The Court of First Instance (Paris seat) dismissed the application, holding that the interest in protecting the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in accessing the case file, as the matter was purely legal and of a general nature.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 435 866. DexCom appealed a decision of the Paris Local Division that had revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. Following the appeal, both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, and the Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal court fees to DexCom.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the withdrawal of counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND-license offer filed by certain TCL defendants in a patent infringement action brought by NEC Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. Following a settlement and the conclusion of a patent licence agreement, the defendants withdrew both counterclaims and sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees for both counterclaims, and held that a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer is subject to court fees by analogous application of Rule 370 RoP.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
DexCom, Inc. appealed a decision of the Munich Local Division that revoked EP 3 797 685 entirely and dismissed all infringement claims brought against the Abbott companies. Following the appeal, DexCom applied to withdraw the infringement action, and the Abbott companies consented and applied to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% refund of appeal court fees to DexCom.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947. The order addresses multiple applications including Samsung's filing on Headwater's standing to sue, Samsung's confidentiality application, and Headwater's applications for leave to amend its pleadings. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, dismissed Samsung's confidentiality application as superfluous, and set deadlines for further submissions and the Interim Conference.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning Dainese S.p.A.'s application under Rule 262A RoP for protection of confidential information in connection with a partial withdrawal of its infringement action. The dispute centered on Exhibit 70, a settlement agreement between Dainese and Defendant 4 (Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy), which Dainese sought to keep confidential from other defendants and third parties. The Court granted confidentiality protection, restricted access to specific named individuals from Defendants 1 and 6, and ordered Dainese to file English translations of the documents.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerning Dainese S.p.A.'s application under Rule 262A RoP for protection of confidential information in an infringement action involving European Patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Dainese sought complete refusal of access to unredacted versions of its written submissions, while Defendants 1 (Alpinestars S.p.A.) and 6 (Motocard Bike, S.L.) opposed this and requested access. The Court established a 'confidential club' limiting access to specified lawyers/representatives and natural persons from each party, ordered production of English translations, and granted leave to appeal.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The order reschedules the interim hearing from May 23, 2025 to May 28, 2025 due to a scheduling conflict, confirms the oral hearing date of July 1, 2025, and sets the end of the written procedure as May 14, 2025.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerns European patent EP 3 646 825. Meril (the defendant) sought a partial stay of proceedings regarding Edwards Lifesciences' cost decision application and an application for the protection of confidential information, pending a Court of Appeal decision. The presiding judge dismissed Meril's application, holding that Rule 295.d RoP does not provide for a partial stay and that no full stay was jointly requested by both parties.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 646 825, dealing with procedural applications following a prior infringement decision. Meril (the defendants) sought an extension of the deadline to comment on Edwards Lifesciences' application for a cost decision, arguing that pending confidentiality issues prevented them from properly responding. The judge-rapporteur lifted all deadlines relating to the cost decision and the protection of confidential information, with new deadlines to be set in due course.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses procedural matters related to Edwards's application for a cost decision and competing confidentiality applications under Rule 262A RoP. The court indicated its intention to follow the reasoning of the Central Division (Paris Seat) order of 30 July 2024, which would grant Meril unlimited access to the costs application while restricting third-party/public access under Rule 262.2 RoP. Edwards was invited to comment within 10 days on the confidentiality applications before the court would invite Meril to comment on the costs application.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 3 646 825, Meril sought a partial stay of proceedings relating to Edwards Lifesciences' cost decision application and a stay of the confidentiality information application, pending a Court of Appeal decision. The judge-rapporteur indicated willingness to order a full stay if both parties agreed, but neither party requested one. Meril then informed the court that its confidentiality stay application would not be maintained if a full or partial stay of the costs proceedings was not granted, rendering a decision on that application unnecessary.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare AB and other Accord entities; STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities; Reddy Pharma SAS and other Reddy entities; Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued on 22 January 2025, consolidating four parallel patent infringement actions (UPC_CFI_145/2024 through UPC_CFI_148/2024) brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The defendants raised preliminary objections concerning jurisdiction, standing of certain claimants, and the scope of the claims. Following a preliminary interim conference, the court ordered Sanofi to remedy deficiencies in its formal submissions within 7 days, invited defendants to comment within 14 days, waived all other deadlines, and set the values of the infringement claims and counterclaims.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
Revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 613 453 B1 relating to electronic vapour products, filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against VMR Products LLC. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) found that claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 lacked inventive step over prior art, but dependent claims 6, 7, and 8 involved an inventive step and possessed independent validity. The patent was maintained in part based on claims 6, 7, and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted, with the remainder revoked.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, brought by Fujifilm Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order, issued in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 11-13 February 2025, sets out preliminary views and questions on key issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law (UPCA versus national law), the value of the dispute, priority and prior use rights, the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and infringement by the SONORA XTRA-3 product.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V., proprietor of European patent EP 4 171 996 B1 concerning a modular trailer system with jack cradles, filed an ex parte application for preserving evidence against P.T.S. Machinery B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. Mammoet alleged that PTS, which had been commissioned in November 2020 to build jack cradles based on confidential drawings, was indirectly infringing the patent by producing and supplying a 'Mechanical Construction' matching the claimed invention. The court granted the application, ordering measures including physical seizure of documentation, access to PTS' premises, appointment of a bailiff and expert, and penalty payments for non-compliance.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned the service of a decision by default in provisional measures proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention as the Chinese authority failed to process service for over six months. The court held that publication of the decision by default on the Court's website, with notification to the defendant by email, constitutes good service under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Unnamed Applicant (Member of the Public) v.Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited (UPC_CFI_380/2023)
An unnamed member of the public, represented by Erik Krahbichler, applied for access to all written pleadings and evidence in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_380/2023) between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril et al. concerning EP 3 769 722. After the parties objected and Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited requested reimbursement of EUR 17,168.70 in legal costs, the Applicant withdrew the applications. The judge-rapporteur closed the proceedings on the access applications and dismissed the requests for reimbursement of legal costs, holding that Article 69 UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering a member of the public to reimburse costs incurred by parties consulted under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH & Others
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for rectification under Rule 353 RoP filed in connection with infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., sought rectification of a prior order concerning the protection of confidential information. The court dismissed the application, finding no obvious slip or clerical mistake, as the unredacted version of the order correctly contained the name of a natural person of Defendant 7 (PowerDeal SRL) to whom access was granted, while only the redacted version had that name replaced with '[…]'.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned the service of a decision by default in provisional measures proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Chinese authorities under the Hague Service Convention, which failed to process service for over six months. The court held that publication of the decision by default on the Court's website, with notification to the defendant by email, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
A revocation action before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 626 092 B1, which relates to vaporizer/electronic cigarette devices. The claimant argued the patent lacked inventive step based on prior art references 'Pan' and 'Cross'. The court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as granted, finding the claimant's arguments regarding lack of inventive step were not well founded.
XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l. v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3742231 filed a procedural application requesting that the language of the proceedings be changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, consented to the requested change and agreed that no translations of previously submitted pleadings were required. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the language of proceedings changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja sought, and Dyson agreed to, either a suspension of the cost assessment proceedings or alternatively an extension of the deadline to file a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction and ordering Dyson to pay SharkNinja's costs. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests as inadmissible, holding that the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP to file a cost assessment application begins with service of the substantive decision in the main proceedings, not with service of an order on interim measures.
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. and Amazon EU S.à r.l. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Amazon's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidential treatment of certain information in its appeal brief. The Court of Appeal rejected Amazon's application, holding that the information sought to be protected was already covered by an existing protective order issued by the Local Division Munich on December 19, 2024, which continued to apply during the appeal proceedings. The Court further found that Amazon's application was insufficiently specific regarding any information not already covered by the existing protective order.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. & Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims and requested the court to close the proceedings without a costs decision. Applying Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure, the court declared the proceedings closed.
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 EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently applied to withdraw their respective claims, with each consenting to the other's withdrawal. The Court of First Instance declared the proceedings closed without issuing a cost decision.
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.