European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 36 of 67 · 2,007 total
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned European Patent EP 3 320 604 B1. The Claimant, Valeo Electrification, filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and counterclaims, and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. Both parties jointly applied to withdraw the infringement action and the revocation counterclaims. The court granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and declined to refund court fees due to the timing of the withdrawal declarations.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs. The Court allowed both withdrawals and declared all proceedings closed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321. Both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim, and the court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with a 40% reimbursement of court fees.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 897 305, a patent protecting a drinking device for retronasal perception of aroma substances. The defendant, a Chinese company, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering the defendant to cease infringing activities across UPC Member States, pay penalties of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and bear the costs of proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against orders granting Powell Gilbert LLP, a member of the public, access to written pleadings and evidence from proceedings concerning provisional measures involving patents EP 2 713 879 and EP 3 831 283. The court held that the general public interest in accessing pleadings and evidence arises after a first-instance decision or order concluding the proceedings is rendered, regardless of whether an appeal is pending, whether the order concerns provisional measures, whether parallel proceedings exist, or whether the decision addresses all arguments and evidence. The court found Powell Gilbert's request to be reasoned and concluded that the balance of interests favored allowing access.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding confidentiality requests in proceedings related to European Patent EP 4 201 327. Menarini sought to extend confidentiality protections over certain technical information in its Statement of Response to the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's requests for confidentiality (Requests I–III) as superfluous, holding that the existing non-appealed confidentiality order from the Court of First Instance continued to apply to the appeal proceedings.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
ITCiCo Spain S.L. applied under Rule 356 of the Rules of Procedure to set aside a decision by default (ORD_51965/2024) issued against it in a revocation action brought by BMW concerning European patent EP 2 796 333. ITCiCo argued that its default in filing the defence to revocation was justified by uncertainty regarding service and the unavailability of its long-standing European Patent Attorney due to illness. The Court rejected the application, holding that the explanation of default under Rule 356(2) RoP must demonstrate that the non-compliance was not attributable to the party's own fault but was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's request to extend the deadline for filing its Statement of response, holding that the request was superfluous because Rule 301.2 RoP provides for an automatic extension of time periods when the court cannot receive electronic documents. The court found that the deadline was automatically extended until the next working day after the Case Management System issue was resolved on 30 December 2024.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of their appeal. The appeal had been filed precautionarily against an order of the Local Division Mannheim requiring them to provide €800,000 in security for Aylo's procedural costs. The Court granted the alternative request, ordering reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees, but rejected the request for full reimbursement.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG Inc. et al.
ArcelorMittal filed a patent infringement action against multiple XPENG entities and automotive dealers based on EP 3290200 before the Local Division Paris in French. The defendants applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, finding it admissible and noting that ArcelorMittal did not object on the merits, and ordered translation arrangements for the Statement of Claim and relevant exhibits.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringing EP 3 655 341, owned by air up group GmbH, which protects a drinking device for retronasal reception of an aroma substance. The defendant, a Chinese company selling a competing drinking bottle with aroma pods, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court ordered the defendant to cease and desist from the infringing activities across UPC Member States, imposed a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Meril Italy srl, Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB
The applicants sought reimbursement of EUR 15,000 in costs incurred in proceedings concerning the respondent's application for access to written pleadings and evidence, which had been rejected. The Court of First Instance dismissed the cost application, holding that a request for access to the register does not constitute litigation in a technical sense and therefore cannot give rise to a decision on the merits, which is a prerequisite for a cost decision under Rule 150 RoP.
MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters) - Application to Intervene in Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Others
MediaTek Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against Xiaomi. The confidential information at issue related to the architecture of MediaTek's processors. The Court of Appeal allowed MediaTek's application to intervene in support of Xiaomi, finding that MediaTek had a direct and present legal interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its processor architecture information.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich on January 7, 2025, in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both parties jointly requested a stay of the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim proceedings, with the plaintiff submitting the defendants' written consent to the stay dated January 3, 2025. The court granted the stay and cancelled the scheduled interim hearing (May 8, 2025) and main hearing (June 3, 2025).
Sanofi Mature IP and Others v.Accord Healthcare and Others (UPC_CFI_145/2024, 146/2024, 147/2024, 148/2024)
This procedural order concerns four related patent infringement actions brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The core issue was Sanofi's application under Rule 305 RoP to substitute Sanofi-Aventis France with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie following a corporate merger. The court granted the substitution, ruling that the retroactive effect of the merger was not relevant and that no formal stay of proceedings was necessary.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed an infringement action against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the defendants filed a counterclaim for invalidity, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories et al.
DexCom, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities concerning European patent EP 4 026 488 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After the Abbott defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and conditional application to amend the patent, and the defendants in turn withdrew their counterclaim. The court allowed all withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to each party for their respective actions.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This case concerned a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1 filed by Tesla against Avago Technologies' infringement action. Tesla withdrew its counterclaim for revocation, and Avago consented to the withdrawal without requesting a cost decision. The Local Chamber Munich allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
Berggren Oy v.Ex Parte
Berggren Oy, a firm of UPC representatives based in Helsinki, filed a request under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure seeking access to all written pleadings and evidence from a completed revocation action (UPC 252/2023) between NanoString Technologies Europe Limited and President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning European patent EP2794928. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Section Munich), granted the request, finding it both admissible and allowable. Access was ordered subject to the redaction of personal data within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321. Both parties agreed that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation should be heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, and the panel concurred. The court ordered the consolidation of the proceedings and scheduled an interim hearing for January 16, 2025, and an oral hearing for March 25, 2025.
Insulet Corporation v.Eoflow Co Ltd
The Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Insulet Corporation's application for a cost decision against Eoflow Co Ltd, which had unsuccessfully attempted to intervene in provisional measures proceedings concerning patent EP4201327. The Court held that the rules on costs (Rules 150 et seq. RoP) require a prior existing decision on costs in principle, and since the order refusing Eoflow's intervention contained no such cost decision, the application was procedurally deficient.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent No. 3 678 321. The technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon resigned pursuant to Art. 9(2) of the Statutes, necessitating the assignment of a replacement judge to ensure continuity of the panel.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber of Hamburg concerning patent EP2642632. The Rapporteur rejected the defendants' (Xiaomi entities) request for early dismissal of the plaintiff's (Nera Innovations Ltd.) conditional requests to amend the patent under R. 30 RoP and corresponding amendments to the claim requests under R. 263 RoP. The court held that the substantive examination of these amendment requests should be reserved for the panel's final decision at the oral hearing, rather than decided as a preliminary matter under R. 334(h) RoP.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation filed an application requesting that Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy be ordered to provide additional security for legal costs of at least EUR 500,000 (alternatively EUR 300,000), on top of the EUR 300,000 security already ordered by the Court. The Court characterized the request as one to modify the existing security by increasing its amount, and after reviewing the arguments, dismissed the application, finding that the new circumstances cited by Microsoft did not warrant a reassessment of the adequacy of the security already ordered.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich in a declaration of non-infringement action concerning European Patents Nos. 3 678 321 and 3 611 989. The order addresses Netgear's request to incorporate a license agreement between Huawei and Qualcomm (previously filed as Annex K68 in related infringement proceedings) into the present case file, and the proposal to assign the technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon from a related proceeding. Both parties consented to both requests, and the Rapporteur granted them.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited & Google Commerce Limited
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Defendants (Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant (Ona Patents SL) lacked the financial resources to cover any potential cost order. The Court granted the request in part, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks of service of the order, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its financial position despite the Defendants presenting credible concerns.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought review of a security for costs order of EUR 300,000 imposed against it in its infringement action against Microsoft Corporation, requesting reduction to EUR 100,000 based on its subsequent reduction of damages claimed. The Court of First Instance dismissed the application, holding that the reduction in damages claimed was immaterial to the value of the proceedings, which reflects the claimant's objective interest at the time of filing, and that the applicant's other arguments constituted a critique of the original order that could only be raised on appeal.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning a request by Syngenta to be relieved from translating Exhibit FF25 (filed in German) attached to its Statement of response in appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. Sumi Agro, the appellant, left the matter to the discretion of the Court. The judge-rapporteur held that no translation of Exhibit FF25 was necessary.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, and Apple Retail France EURL
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 requested that the claimant, Ona Patents SL, provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the request well-founded, holding that the claimant, a recently founded entity with minimal share capital and no apparent financial reserves, failed to substantiate its ability to bear potential costs. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks, rejecting the defendants' request for EUR 1.012 million and a one-week deadline.
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.