European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 35 of 67 · 2,007 total
N.J Diffusion SARL v.Gisela Mayer GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2404516. The claimant, N.J Diffusion SARL, sought an in-person case management conference to physically examine two wigs deposited with the registry and take detailed photographs of their connection zones. The judge-rapporteur declared the request admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding the requested evidentiary measure unnecessary since enlarged photographs of the wigs were already in the rejoinder brief, and ordered the case management conference to proceed online.
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l., Amazon EU S.à r.l. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Amazon's request under Rule 262.2 RoP to classify certain information as confidential in its appeal against a Munich Local Division order. The court granted the request to classify specific information as confidential and exclude it from third-party file access, provisionally ordered the parties and their representatives to maintain confidentiality, and set a potential penalty of up to €250,000 per violation.
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.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. Before a final decision was issued, the parties reached a contractual settlement and NEC declared withdrawal of the action. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by NEC.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 430 921 B1, owned by Juul Labs International, Inc. and directed to vaporization device systems. The Court revoked the patent entirely with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, and ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714 before the Local Division Munich. Before the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached a contractual agreement, and NEC declared withdrawal of the action. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by NEC.
Sanofi Mature IP & Others v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. & Others (UPC_CFI_145/2024 and related cases)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning four related patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants, a group of Sanofi entities, sought substitution of Sanofi Mature IP by Sanofi SA following a corporate reorganization in which Sanofi Mature IP was dissolved without liquidation and its assets, including the patent in suit, were universally transferred to Sanofi SA. The defendants raised no objections at the preliminary interim conference, and the Court granted the substitution, holding that it had no consequence on the proceedings under Rules 306 and 310 RoP.
Individual Plaintiff v.OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV
The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court rejected an infringement action brought by the holder of European patent EP 2 *** (relating to mandibular advancement devices for treating obstructive sleep apnea) against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV. The court found neither literal infringement nor infringement by equivalence, as functional equivalence was lacking. The court confirmed the plaintiff had timely filed the main proceedings after obtaining evidence preservation, but lifted the preservation order and ordered the return of seized goods, with the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg concerns the bifurcation of infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant Daedalus Prime LLC and Defendants Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH all favored referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division Paris. The court referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division Paris while continuing with the infringement action, scheduling the oral hearing not before early summer 2025.
NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG
NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patents at issue (EP3743812 and EP2628080) were granted. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, finding that while English is the common language in the relevant field of computer technology, the balancing of interests favored maintaining German as the language of proceedings. The Court emphasized that three of the four parties are domiciled in Germany, the Claimants are medium-sized enterprises, and ensuring fair access to justice for such enterprises is an important objective of the UPCA.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
Bhagat Textile Engineers appealed a decision of the Milan Local Division finding it had infringed Oerlikon's EP 2 145 848 patent and filed a separate application under Rule 223 RoP seeking suspensive effect of the appeal. Bhagat argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to parallel revocation proceedings involving a third party (Himson Engineering) and considerable doubts about the patent's validity. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that Bhagat had failed to evidence any exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court overturned a decision by the Local Division Hamburg which had held that the UPC lacked jurisdiction to quantify damages following a final national infringement judgment. The court ruled that the UPC has jurisdiction for a standalone claim for determination of damages after a national court has established patent infringement and the infringer's obligation to pay damages, and that this jurisdiction extends to infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the European patent was still in force at that time.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
The Local Chamber Vienna of the Unified Patent Court found that STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH infringed European Patent EP 2 643 717 B1 owned by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, which relates to a color- and light-mixing collecting optic for outdoor display panels. The court granted injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and removal from distribution channels, as well as a finding of liability for damages, but rejected the plaintiff's request for publication of the decision. The intervener Chainzone Technology was ordered to bear costs jointly with the defendant.
Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE – Withdrawal of Cost Assessment Application v.Ex Parte
This order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court addressed the withdrawal of a cost assessment application filed by Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. While the main infringement and revocation proceedings had been appealed to the Court of Appeal, the cost assessment application remained pending at first instance. The Rapporteur held that the first-instance court retained jurisdiction over the withdrawal of the cost assessment application, and that the Rapporteur alone had original competence under Rule 156.2 RoP to allow the withdrawal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Dexcom entities concerning European patent EP 4 087 195 before the Local Division Munich. Following the filing of counterclaims for revocation by the defendants and an application to amend the patent by the claimant, all parties mutually withdrew their respective claims before the scheduled oral hearing. The Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs with no reimbursement between the parties.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns the admission of withdrawal of the infringement action and revocation counterclaims, as well as the reimbursement of court fees, in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 1 612 910. Following a first instance decision by the Local Chamber Hamburg that partially found infringement and partially invalidated the patent, Avago appealed and subsequently sought to withdraw its infringement action, while Tesla sought to withdraw its revocation counterclaims. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawals, declared the appeal proceedings terminated, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Avago.
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 an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. against Alpinestars S.p.A. and other defendants regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Defendant Alpinestars S.p.A. requested an extension of the deadline for filing its Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation to await the outcome of parallel EPO appeal proceedings. The court granted the extension to 27 February 2025, balancing procedural efficiency with the adversarial principle.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of claims in proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 612 910. Following a first instance decision by the Local Division Hamburg that partially revoked the patent and dismissed the infringement claim, both parties sought to withdraw their respective claims. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawals, declared the appeal proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to Avago.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message functionality. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that the defendants' 'Barryvox S2' device infringed the patent, while rejecting the defendants' counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and damages, while partially dismissing the infringement claim and declining to order publication of the decision.
Sanofi v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva (UPC_CFI_145-148/2024)
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns four consolidated patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel). The dispute centered on access to confidential information contained in Claimants' Exhibit No. D.4 (a witness statement with appendices). The court granted partial confidentiality protection while expanding access beyond Sanofi's requested limitation to only the named UPC representatives, allowing access to specified legal teams and at least one natural person from each Defendant group.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message output during search operations. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The court found direct and indirect infringement by the accused 'Barryvox S2' device, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, information, and damages, while allocating costs predominantly to the plaintiff.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a judge-rapporteur could issue an order on security for costs under R. 158 RoP and decide on leave to appeal. The court held that while a judge-rapporteur is competent to issue an order on security for costs, such an order is a case management order subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP, and only the panel—not the judge-rapporteur—can decide on leave to appeal. The impugned order of the Mannheim Local Division was revoked and the case referred back to the same panel.
Bentley Motors Limited v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Bentley Motors Limited filed a revocation action against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning European patent EP 1 552 399 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance. The applicant subsequently applied to withdraw the revocation action, stating it had the respondent's consent and that no party would seek a cost decision. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered that all prior orders in the proceedings be of no effect.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 602. Magna appealed the injunction, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, with no cost decision needed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, and Netgear Deutschland GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patents Nos. 3 611 989 and 3 678 321. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, Huawei withdrew its application for provisional measures, and the respondents consented to the withdrawal and the release of the security deposit. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the release of the EUR 3,000,000 security deposit to Huawei's legal representatives.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This revised order concerns proceedings before the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding the number of auxiliary requests filed by the patent proprietor (Harvard College) in its application to amend the patent at issue. The panel modified the judge-rapporteur's earlier order that had limited auxiliary requests to a one-digit number, holding that 55 auxiliary requests were not categorically unreasonable given the complexity of the case and the 42 validity attacks raised in the counterclaim for revocation. The proceedings were stayed pending the EPO Opposition Division decision, and Harvard was ordered to submit its auxiliary requests within 20 days after that decision.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604. Magna appealed the order, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was needed.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
Avago Technologies filed an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 against Realtek Semiconductor before the Local Chamber Munich. After the court issued an ex parte order on 9 December 2024 that was never served on Realtek, Avago withdrew its application on 3 January 2025. The court allowed the withdrawal without hearing the respondent, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Avago to bear the costs.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
This is a cost determination order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction proceeding. The parties had agreed out of court on the reimbursement amounts (EUR 195,000 for first instance representation, EUR 11,000 in court fees, and EUR 38,000 for appeal representation), totaling EUR 244,000. The sole disputed issue was whether Edwards was entitled to interest on the reimbursed costs at five percentage points above the German base rate. The court rejected the interest claim, holding that neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure provide a legal basis for interest in cost determination proceedings.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an action for declaration of non-infringement regarding European Patents EP 3 678 321 and EP 3 611 989. The plaintiffs (Netgear entities) applied for leave to withdraw the action, to which the defendant (Huawei) had consented in parallel proceedings. The court granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of the court fees paid by the plaintiffs.
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.