European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 37 of 73 · 2,185 total
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerns infringement actions filed by multiple Moderna entities against Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation regarding European Patent No. EP2279254. The defendants filed their Statement of Defence along with a counterclaim for revocation and a request for confidentiality (R.262A Application) on 8 July 2025. The order addresses procedural matters under Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure, including the handling of confidential information in the pleadings submitted by the defendants.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request 3) and held that Orbisk's product did not infringe the patent as so limited. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful, with some claims revoked and others upheld, and Winnow was ordered to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
WhiteWater West Industries Ltd., Endless Surf Ltd., White Water Era GmbH v.Surftown GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 2 728 089 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The Claimant, American Wave Machines, Inc., is involved in infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation against four Defendants. The court amended its prior order of 1 August 2025 to classify certain technical details of the challenged embodiment as confidential and to restrict access to unredacted versions of the parties' briefs and exhibits.
Cisco Systems GmbH , Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order regarding a request for extension of time limits in an appeal concerning EP 2 201 740. Cisco requested a one-month extension to file its response to the appeal and its cross-appeal, while Lionra argued for only one week or ten calendar days. The Court extended the deadline by two weeks, until October 3, 2025, finding that Cisco was entitled to an extension because it had only recently gained access to the unredacted version of Lionra's appeal brief.
Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072 B1. At the joint request of both parties under Rule 321 of the Rules of Procedure, the language of proceedings was changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas in place of legally qualified judge Dr. Thom as rapporteur.
Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a dispute over security for costs in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 670 898. The Defendants (Arthrex entities) requested EUR 3,300,000 in security (EUR 1,100,000 per Defendant), while the Claimant (Syntorr LP) opposed any security order or alternatively requested a reduced amount of EUR 1,000,000–2,000,000, offering to provide security via litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement. The Judge-rapporteur ordered the Claimant to provide EUR 2,000,000 in security by 30 September 2025, either by bank guarantee or deposit into the Court's account, ruling that the Claimant's insurance policy was not adequate security under Rule 158(1) RoP and that an amount exceeding the regular ceiling for recoverable costs was not justified.
CeraCon GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns a request for review of a judge-rapporteur's order that had dismissed CeraCon GmbH's application to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413 by introducing a new novelty attack based on Euro-PCT application EP 3 868 480 A1. The panel confirmed the earlier order, holding that the amendment was excluded under R. 263.2(a) RoP because CeraCon failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the prior art. The request for review was rejected.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO BILLING US CORP., AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.Respondent
The defendants filed an application under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking cost assessment for attorney fees incurred during an appeal proceeding brought by the plaintiffs against an order requiring security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Local Chamber Mannheim held the application inadmissible, ruling that costs arising from the application, opposition, or defense of procedural orders, including security-for-costs orders, cannot be assessed in a separate cost assessment proceeding under Rule 150 RoP but must instead be assessed as part of the overall procedural costs in the cost assessment following the substantive decision.
WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an application by Hurom Co., Ltd. under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect certain cost-related information submitted in connection with its application for a cost decision under Rule 150 et seq. RoP. The information sought to be protected is a breakdown of the hours worked by its legal representatives. The Respondents (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) opposed the request, arguing there was no legitimate interest in confidentiality vis-à-vis them. The legally qualified judge Böttcher, acting as judge-rapporteur, issued the procedural order addressing the confidentiality request.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 252 857. The Claimants (Sanofi and Regeneron) requested a stay of the infringement proceedings and counterclaim for revocation pending the outcome of an appeal in a related case (UPC_CFI_505/2024) concerning patent EP 3 536 712. The Court granted the stay, finding that the infringement question in the present case involves the same factual and legal questions as the related case, and that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, Bodycap, Université de Rennes v.EPO
1 UPC_CFI_628/2025 ORDONNANCE du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet Division Centrale (section de Milan) concernant une Action contre une décision de l’OEB (règle 97 RdP) rendue le 6 août 2025 DEMANDEURS 1) Bodycap 6, rue du docteur Laënnec 14200 -
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 697 391 B1, addressing the Claimant's application under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information. The court classified certain information highlighted in gray in the Defendant's Application for a cost decision as confidential and restricted access to a defined confidentiality club. The Defendant's argument that the number of individuals granted access should correspond to parallel proceedings was rejected.
igus GmbH v.Respondent
This is a default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 912 243 B1. The plaintiff, igus GmbH, a German company based in Cologne, holds the patent directed to a compact cable guide for cleanroom applications with a sheath unit and clamping device. The defendant, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., a Chinese company, failed to appear in the proceedings, leading to the default ruling. The patent was filed on January 14, 2020, granted on March 20, 2024, and granted unitary effect on April 17, 2024.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG, Cybex Retail GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 905 615. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure to jointly hear the patent infringement action brought by Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. against the Cybex entities and the counterclaim for revocation, rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was made for reasons of efficiency and to ensure that validity and infringement are decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.Respondent
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to file further written pleadings in response to the Defendant's Rejoinder. The Judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding it admissible but not well-founded, as the Claimant failed to demonstrate that due process principles required an additional round of written pleadings.
NUC Electronics Co., Ltd v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_162/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 4 August 2025 concerning EP 2 028 981 concerning App_33193/2025 (Request for a penalty payment, R. 354.4 RoP) concerning App_33935/2025 (request for the extens
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning three European patents (EP 3 398 487, EP 3 281 569, and EP 3 610 762) in a dispute between CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (plaintiff) and ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH (defendant). The court addressed the question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the UPC Agreement regarding the handling of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. With the agreement of both parties, the chamber ordered that both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim be heard jointly, citing procedural efficiency and the moderate complexity of the technical subject matter.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 548 898 B1. The applicant Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG sought preliminary measures against respondent BAG Diagnostics GmbH, who challenged both infringement and the validity of the patent. The presiding judge ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel, finding it appropriate given the substantive validity challenges raised by the respondent.
Moderna Norway AS, Moderna, Inc., Moderna Sweden AB, Moderna France SASU, Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Biotech UK Limited, Moderna Germany GmbH, ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA, Moderna v.Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This order concerns a Rule 262A application filed by multiple Moderna entities (Applicants/Defendants in the infringement actions/Claimants in the counterclaims) seeking to designate certain information in their statement of defence/counterclaim for revocation as confidential. The Respondents/Claimants in the infringement action, Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, reached agreement with the Applicants on the members of the confidentiality club and the terms of the confidentiality order. The Local Division The Hague issued the order based on the parties' agreed terms as set out in the confidentiality agreement submitted as exhibit G122.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in cost proceedings related to EP 2 697 391 B1. The court granted the application to classify certain cost information as confidential and established a confidentiality club, granting access to the Defendant's legal representatives, the COO, and the CEO Dr Stephen Fodor, but denying access to a patent agent/consultant due to insufficient justification.
Centripetal Limited v.Respondent
The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Claimant's (Centripetal Limited) request under Rule 36 for a further written pleading in its infringement action against Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The court held that allowing additional briefing would prejudice procedural fairness, disrupt the front-loaded procedure mandated by the Rules of Procedure, and was unnecessary because the functionalities the Claimant sought to newly attack had been known to it for considerable time.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 263 098 B1 in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The court identified ambiguities in the Claimant's submissions regarding the ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning the validity of three alleged patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The Claimant was ordered to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants given until 3 September 2025 to respond.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.Respondent
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application for confidentiality in a patent infringement dispute over EP 2 643 717. The Court of Appeal addressed whether Chainzone, as intervener supporting Strabag, could obtain restrictions on the use and disclosure of Fraunhofer measurement reports that had already been submitted to the Court of First Instance without any prior confidentiality request. The Court held that an application under R. 262A RoP restricting access to or use of information and evidence must be made at the time of filing the document, and a first-time request in appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted at first instance is inadmissible.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Respondent
This is a cost decision by the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court following the dismissal of Alexion Pharmaceuticals' application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's marketing of Epysqli®. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court partially granted the application, recognizing costs for two legal representatives, two patent attorneys, and an expert, but rejecting costs for two English solicitors as not sufficiently justified.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215. Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for certain information, relying on a non-disclosure agreement concluded between the MediaTek group and Huawei on 11 July 2025. Huawei confirmed the NDA and raised no objections to the requested access restrictions. The Local Chamber Munich granted the application in the scope set out in the order, ordering confidentiality measures, exclusion of the public from hearings and judgment pronouncement regarding confidential information, redaction before publication, and exclusion of confidential information from third-party file access.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
3: «Specifications in the description that are not consistent with the granted claims cannot serve as a basis of a broad interpretation of a claim.”) 2- L’admissibilité d’une demande alléguée tardive : En l’espèce, la Cour considère que la demande de contrefaçon par équivalence qui intervient juste après le mémoire en défense n’est pas tardive (au stade du mémoire en réplique), car cette demande ne change pas la nature de la stratégie procédurale du demandeur qui ne fait que l’adapter a
A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_587/2025 UPC_CFI_624/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/08/2025 APPLICANT 1) A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Applicant, Defendant in the main proceedings, hereinafter: “Menarini”) - Via
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1, issued in combined infringement and revocation proceedings. The court identified significant ambiguities in the Claimant's presentation regarding the chain of title and ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning three patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The court ordered the Claimant to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants to respond by 3 September 2025.
WhiteWater West Industries Ltd., Endless Surf Ltd., White Water Era GmbH v.Surftown GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing an application under R. 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information. The court granted the application, classifying certain technical details of the challenged embodiment as confidential, and restricted access to the unredacted versions of the parties' submissions to the Claimant's legal representatives and their internal assistants. The Claimant was also given an opportunity to supplement its submissions regarding the role of a natural person (Mr. [...]) for whom access to the confidential information was requested.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns a cost decision for appeal proceedings before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, relating to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the patent proprietor, had its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's product Epysqli® dismissed at first instance and on appeal, with costs ordered against it. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its appeal costs, and the court partially granted the application, finding that costs for two legal representatives and four patent attorneys were largely reasonable, but disallowing costs for two English solicitors and certain travel expenses.
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.