European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 34 of 73 · 2,185 total
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The defendant requested that certain sections of the claimant's reply brief dated August 25, 2025 be disregarded under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that the claimant was only permitted to respond to the auxiliary request for patent amendment under Rule 32.3 RoP, and not to address the patent in its granted form. The defendant alternatively sought leave to reply to those sections and an extension of the reply deadline under Rule 336 RoP.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Respondent
Eyesmatch Ltd filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 936 439 against Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the action after the parties settled the dispute out of court. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 14,400) to the Claimant.
Windhager Handels GmbH v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The plaintiff bellissa HAAS GmbH, sole registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1 concerning a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip, sued Windhager GmbH and two individual defendants for alleged direct, and alternatively indirect, literal infringement of the patent. The patent, valid in Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg, claims an edging for beds and green areas consisting of at least two sheet metal strips with interlocking tongue-and-slot connection ends. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued headnotes clarifying that offering or supplying all components designed for simple assembly at the place of use constitutes direct patent infringement under Art. 25(a) EPGÜ, and that individual sale of a coordinated component likewise constitutes direct infringement when assembly is indicated or otherwise obvious.
HMD Global Oy v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Mannheim granted HMD Global Oy's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. based on European patent EP3667981. The defendant argued that English was the predominant language in mobile communications technology, that the evidence and ETSI standard specifications were predominantly in English, and that conducting proceedings in German imposed significant translation burdens and costs. Applying the framework established by the Court of Appeal, the Court weighed all relevant circumstances and found the outcome balanced, holding that in cases of equal weighting, the position of the defendant—who did not initiate the action and faces strict preparation deadlines—shall prevail.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957, in which the claimant Total Semiconductor, LLC sought review of an order by the judge-rapporteur requiring it to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had requested security for costs, arguing that the claimant, a recently founded US-based licensing entity operating from a co-working space and funded by third-party investors, posed an enforcement and insolvency risk. The claimant opposed, contending that the defendants failed to establish sufficient facts demonstrating a real risk that cost reimbursement could not be satisfied or enforced.
UPC Decision UPC-000366 v.Respondent
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) filed by Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. against several defendants, including members of the BEGA group of companies, alleging infringement of European Patent EP3522755B1. The patent relates to a cabinet designed to house a washing machine or washer-dryer at waist level for ergonomic use. The application against the first defendant, Wasombouw B.V., was withdrawn shortly after filing, while the proceedings continued against the remaining defendants. The Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance held an oral hearing on 14 August 2025 and issued its order on 11 September 2025.
Ona Patents SL v.Respondent
Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities regarding EP 2 263 098 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to the closure of written proceedings, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action, and the defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and released the security for costs previously provided by the claimant.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This provisional order concerns a confidentiality application filed by the defendants (MediaTek) in connection with their statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 567 731. The defendants sought protection for technical information regarding the functioning of certain chips, particularly the implementation of an encoding algorithm, and requested that access be limited to a maximum of three named persons from the plaintiff's legal department. Huawei opposed the request, arguing the information was not protectable as it consisted merely of negative facts, and alternatively requested access for nine, six, or three named persons.
Washtower v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH et al
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. (Applicants), proprietors of European Patent EP3522755B1 relating to cabinets for housing washing machines at waist level, sought provisional measures against several defendants from the BEGA furniture group and a related partner company. The application concerned alleged infringement of the patent by the defendants' manufacture and sale of competing washing machine cabinets. The Local Division The Hague issued an order on provisional measures following an oral hearing held on 14 August 2025, after the Applicants filed their application on 28 May 2025 and the parties exchanged submissions including objections, replies, and rejoinders.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.
This is a corrigendum order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 10 September 2025, correcting a prior confidentiality order of 9 September 2025. The order classifies certain contract documents and internal company information related to the patent transfer chain, submitted by the Claimant Ona Patents SL in its brief dated 20 August 2025, as confidential. Access to the unredacted versions of the brief and exhibits KAP 21 to KAP 33 is restricted to authorized representatives and specified individuals on the Defendants' side.
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
This is a confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 in proceedings between Ona Patents SL (Claimant) and Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited (Defendants), with Ekahau Oy as Counter-defendant. The court dismissed the Defendants' request to limit the scope of the Claimant's confidentiality request, finding that the documents in question related to third parties bound by confidentiality clauses and internal business documents not fully disclosed to the public. The court also declined to permit disclosure of the confidential information to the District Court of Munich I in a parallel case between the same parties.
ECOVACS Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning a request for extension of deadlines filed by Defendant 2 (ECOVACS Europe GmbH) in a patent infringement action brought by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG. The plaintiff alleges infringement of European Patent EP 3 494 446 against four Ecovacs group entities in China, Germany, France, and the United States. Defendant 2 seeks to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense and any counterclaim for invalidity until November 26, 2025, and the deadline for filing a Preliminary Objection until September 26, 2025, offering in return to facilitate service on the other three defendants to create a uniform deadline regime.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Respondent
Divisione Locale di Milano DECISIONE del Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti Tribunale di primo grado relativa al brevetto EP EP2145848 Attore in contraffazione e convenuto in nullità Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid – DE Rappresentato dag
HMD Global Oy v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order addressing HMD Global Oy's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Fraunhofer concerning European patent EP2609590. HMD Global Oy argued that the change was necessary for reasons of fairness, given that the evidence and annexes were predominantly in English, the defendant was based in a non-German-speaking country, and it communicated internally and with its representatives exclusively in English. Fraunhofer opposed the application. The order reflects a weighing of the parties' positions and the relevant circumstances of the case.
ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_530/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 08/09/2025 Concernant la prorogation des délais (R. 9.3 RdP) REQUERANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED (Parties à la procédure au principal - Dé
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Respondent
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated concerning European Patent EP 3 296 274 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. TCL sought a two-week extension of the deadline to file its reply to the Defence to Revocation and defence to the Application to amend, citing ongoing technical testing for prior art attacks. The Court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant had not demonstrated special circumstances justifying deviation from the standard two-month time period provided in the Rules of Procedure.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation applied for an order treating certain information as strictly confidential in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The information in question consisted of invoices from Microsoft's law firm detailing hours spent on the case and fees agreed upon. The respondent objected, arguing no specific reason for confidentiality was provided and that cost specifications could not be considered trade secrets or attorney-client privileged. The Court granted Microsoft's application, holding that such information qualifies as confidential under Rule 262A RoP and falls within the scope of attorney-client privilege under Rule 287 RoP.
Renault Nederland N.V., Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Dacia S.A., Renault Deutschland AG, Renault S.A.S. v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Hamburg granted a procedural application by the Renault/Dacia Defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Avago Technologies concerning European patent EP3720095. The Claimant did not object to the application, and the Court relied on the reasoning of a prior order dated 3 July 2025 between the same Claimant and three of the present Defendants. The Court ordered that the language of proceedings be English, the language in which the patent was granted, and that no specific translation or interpretation arrangements would be required.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an application for provisional measures before the Milan Local Division based on EP 3 646 825 B1 against Sintec S.r.l. and Value Med S.r.l. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement on 23 June 2025 and jointly requested the Court to confirm it. The Court confirmed the settlement but dismissed Edwards's request for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees, holding that Rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP does not apply to provisional measures proceedings.
Renault Nederland N.V., Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AG v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order regarding an application by the Defendants (Renault entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action based on EP3651429. The Claimant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, did not object to the application. The court considered the fairness grounds and relevant circumstances under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP, referring to a previous order between the same Claimant and three of the Defendants.
Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants, Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, to stay both infringement and revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. EP 3 821 580 pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The defendants argued that a preliminary EPO opinion indicating added matter made revocation highly likely. The claimant, Centripetal Limited, opposed the stay, arguing the preliminary opinion was non-binding and that the UPC proceedings were well-advanced with an oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the stay request, finding it preferable to proceed with the hearing as planned to avoid conflicting decisions.
Ona Patents SL v.Respondent
Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, but prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The court allowed both withdrawals, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was required as the parties agreed to bear their own costs.
Belparts Group N.V. v.Respondent
Belparts Group N.V. filed an application under Rule 302.3 of the Rules of Procedure seeking consolidation of its infringement action pending before the Local Division Munich with a counterclaim for infringement pending before the Central Division Paris, both based on European patent EP 3 812 870. Despite the defendants' consent, the Presiding Judge dismissed the application, holding that the statutory prerequisite of proceedings being before the same local, regional, or central division was not satisfied.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK)
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1 relating to a robot localization method, filed an application on September 2, 2025, parallel to a main infringement action, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stands of Roborock (HK) Limited at the IFA trade fair in Berlin (September 5–9, 2025). The patent had previously been opted out but the opt-out was withdrawn on July 16, 2025. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on September 4, 2025, concerning the inspection and evidence preservation request under Article 60 of the UPC Agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a request for security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. sued MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 567 731, while MediaTek Germany GmbH filed a counterclaim for revocation. MediaTek Germany GmbH sought an order requiring Huawei to post security of €239,000 within six weeks, arguing that enforcement of a cost decision against the Chinese claimant would be de facto impossible or significantly more difficult. Huawei opposed the request, contending that it has consistently met its payment obligations in prior proceedings and that the amount demanded was excessive.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_552/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 04/09/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Applicant) - 333 Lakeside Drive - 94404 - Foster City - US Rep
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 385 739. The plaintiff, UERAN Technology LLC, has brought claims against seven Xiaomi group entities. Defendant 5, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, requested the court to establish a unified deadline regime for all defendants and to extend the deadlines for reply and rejoinder by two weeks each to account for the Christmas and Easter holiday periods.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Respondent
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' While service to the China-based Defendant 1 was not completed, the Germany-based Defendant 2 was served but failed to lodge a substantiated objection within the time period set by the Court. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the provisional measures against Defendant 2 by regular order, ordering cessation of infringing activities, provision of information, and imposing penalty payments for non-compliance.
Zapp Precision Metals GmbH, Zapp AG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the defendants for an extension of the deadline to file their statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 805 415. The defendants sought an extension from September 9, 2025 to October 9, 2025, while the plaintiff opposed the request and proposed at most a one-week extension. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf applied Rule 9.3(a) of the Rules of Procedure, noting that extensions should be granted only in justified exceptional cases and that parties must file extension requests as soon as it becomes clear they cannot meet the deadline.
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED v.Respondent
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 769 722, where Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued several Meril entities for patent infringement, and the Defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Court of first instance found the patent invalid as granted but upheld it as amended, and found infringement of the amended patent, ordering the Defendants to bear the costs of the infringement proceedings and 75% of Edwards' costs in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The Defendants sought rectification of the costs order, arguing the Court should have expressly ordered Edwards to bear 25% of the Defendants' costs in the counterclaim proceedings. The Court dismissed the rectification requests, holding that the chosen cost allocation was a valid and equitable distribution under Article 69 UPCA and the Rules of Procedure.
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.