European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 38 of 73 · 2,185 total
Anker Innovations (Netherlands) B.V., Anker Technology (UK) Ltd., Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd., Anker Innovations Ltd., Fantasia Trading LLC, Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 in an infringement action brought by Powermat Technologies, Ltd. against multiple Anker entities and Fantasia Trading LLC. The defendants filed a conditional request to stay the infringement proceedings pending the resolution of their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich Local Division. The court postponed its decision on the stay request until after the oral hearing on the merits.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC filed an infringement action against Samsung entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947, titled 'Verifiable device assisted service policy implementation,' alleging that Samsung's mobile devices running Android 7 or higher infringed claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and/or 35. Samsung contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, also seeking to challenge the patent's validity on grounds including added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court held an oral hearing on 20 May 2025 and announced its decision on 1 August 2025, with the outcome indicating the patent was not found valid as granted or as amended.
Novartis AG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA, ZENTIVA K.S.
1. Art. 69 UPCA, by requiring legal costs to be proportionate and reasonable (see also Rule 152.1 RoP), establishes a legal standard that enables the judge-rapporteur to issue a decision on legal costs. One might ask whether this provision is compliant with Art. 8 and 78 UPCA, which provide for a decision to be issued in principle by a panel. It can be assumed that, once a decision on the merits has been taken, the requirements of proceedings efficiency and proportionality prevail (the deci
NEC Corporation v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action (UPC_CFI_487/2023) relating to European patent EP 2 645 714. The order grants an extension of the deadline for both parties to submit comments on a Rule 262.1(b) RoP request, extending it from 30 July 2025 to 12 August 2025 due to the absence of the Claimant's representatives. The order also addresses confidentiality protections for written submissions and exhibits.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This is an infringement action before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 186 428 B2, titled 'Tissue design for protective clothing,' which relates to a fabric structure for protective clothing for emergency forces. TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH, an Austrian manufacturer of firefighting clothing and exclusive licensee of the patent, alleged that Sioen NV, a Belgian company, infringed the patent in Latvia through its '868 – Twin/AS' product and in Portugal through its 'NOMEX SIOEN modelo RSB LX' product. The Court found infringement and granted TEXPORT's claims for a declaration of infringement, injunction, damages, information, recall, destruction, and legal costs, while dismissing all other requests.
Toyota Motor Europe v.Respondent
Central Division Paris Seat Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) delivered on 31. July 2025 ACT 579176/2023 UPC_CFI-361/2023 PARTIES: Claimant: Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA, Avenue du Bourget 60, 1140 Evere, Belgiu
RENAULT SAS v.Respondent
This procedural matter concerns an application by Renault SAS for access to the court register and file of three concluded proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1, in which Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited had sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement. The original infringement action and revocation counterclaim had been terminated following withdrawal permitted by decisions dated 7 January 2025. Renault sought access to review Avago's legal and technical arguments, claim interpretation positions, validity arguments, and patent amendments, while the defendants (Tesla) consented to access to a specific list of pleadings but opposed broader disclosure.
Aesculap AG v.Respondent
This case concerns an order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf regarding European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, owned by Aesculap AG. Following a prior order dated July 10, 2025, which required Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) to cease offering, marketing, or using certain cutting tools for surgical torque-transmitting instruments in Germany and France, and to provide structured information about infringing products, the present order addresses Rule 354 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the threat of coercive measures. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as rapporteur.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France, S.A.S., Samsung Electronics GmbH
Headwater Research LLC brought an infringement action against four Samsung entities concerning European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1, which relates to wireless end-user devices controlling application network access based on background/foreground states. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1 due to added matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Headwater to bear the costs.
N.V. Nutricia v.Respondent
This case before the Local Division Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 359 858 B1, which was finally revoked during the proceedings. The Claimant (N.V. Nutricia) sought closure of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, while the parties disputed the value of the dispute. The Court set the value of the infringement action at €250,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at €500,000, ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of both proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant.
LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., Energy3000 solar GmbH, LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V. v.Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, relating to solar cell technology. The order addresses several procedural matters including a correction to the address on the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, confidentiality measures for information in the statement of defence, and the decision to handle both infringement and validity in the same proceedings. The court granted the defendants' requests for confidentiality protection, amended a prior provisional order, accepted the address correction, and confirmed that both infringement and validity would be decided together.
Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., Energy3000 solar GmbH, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829. The claimants, Jinko entities, brought the action against multiple LONGi entities and other defendants. The Presiding Judge set dates for the interim conference (13 February 2026) and oral hearing (12 May 2026), while noting that proceedings against the fourth defendant would be deferred and the counterclaim would be addressed separately.
Memodo GmbH, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, PowerDeal SRL, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Libra Energy B.V. v.Respondent
Defendants 3 and 5 to 8 in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 065 184 B1 requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP against the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the request, ordering the Claimant to provide EUR 100,000 in security within six weeks, finding that the Claimant's financial difficulties justified the security and that the defendants' share of the amount in dispute was irrelevant when determining the cost ceiling.
Discord Netherlands B.V., Discord Inc. v.Respondent
The Mannheim Local Division dismissed an application by Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. seeking to bar Malikie Innovations Ltd.'s infringement action concerning EP 3 716 655 in relation to Germany. Discord argued that Malikie, lacking a residence or establishment in Germany, had failed to appoint a domestic representative under Sec. 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), rendering the infringement action manifestly bound to fail for Germany under Rules 361 and 362 RoP. The court held that Sec. 25(1) GPA is a German national procedural provision inapplicable to UPC proceedings, and that even if it were applicable, the alleged defect would be remediable rather than irremediable.
Syngenta Limited v.Respondent
This order was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. All parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings in respect of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The presiding judge granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure, with the stay not to be lifted before 30 September 2025, and cancelled the scheduled interim conference and oral hearing dates.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Respondent
DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO UPC_CFI_761/2024 ACT 63992/2024 ACT .24515/2025 Ordinanza Del Tribunale unificato dei Brevetti di primo grado adottata in data 29.7. 2025 KEYWORDS Rule 150 – Separato procedimento per i costi della decisione ROP; Rule 353 – Rettifica delle decisioni e d
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This procedural order was issued by the Local Division Lisbon in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1, brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against ASUSTek Computer Inc. Following a prior order dated 14 July 2025, both parties reached agreement on the appointment of a Technically Qualified Judge and on hearing the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation together. The Court accepted the parties' joint proposal to reschedule the Oral Hearing to 25 March 2026 and issued orders regarding the allocation of a Technically Qualified Judge, the interim conference, and the Oral Hearing.
*** v.Essetre Holding spa
A revocation action was filed against Essetre Holding s.p.a. concerning European Patent No. EP 2 875 923 B1, which relates to a machine for machining walls, particularly walls made of wood or multilayer walls. The claimant argued that the subject-matter of claim 1 lacked novelty over a German patent document (DE 34 12 441 C2) and a YouTube video, and lacked inventive step over the prior art in combination with common general knowledge or additional cited references. The Court addressed the interpretation of the term 'a working surface' in the independent claim, affirming that it should be interpreted as meaning 'one working surface' based on its ordinary meaning and the context of the patent's description and drawings.
Roborock Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants for an extension of time limits in a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 3 030 943. The defendants sought to extend the deadline for filing their opposition under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure to August 26, 2025, and the deadlines for the statement of defense under Rule 23 and the counterclaim for revocation under Rule 25 to October 27, 2025. The plaintiff consented to the extensions, and the presiding judge granted the request.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Respondent
This case concerned an application for provisional measures filed by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in relation to European Patent EP 1 957 544 B1. The applicant withdrew its application for preliminary measures with the defendant's consent, and the court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the applicant.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision following a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings related to European Patent EP 2661892. Seoul Viosys had successfully filed a preliminary objection requesting the transfer of Photon Wave's revocation action from the Paris Central Division to the Paris Local Division, with Photon Wave ordered to bear 80% of Seoul Viosys's legal costs. The court addressed the admissibility of a separate cost decision under Rule 150 RoP when a division declines jurisdiction and refers the case to another division, holding that such an application is admissible but subject to a significantly lower cost ceiling than full proceedings.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 July 2025 App_32933/2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr
OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v.***
This decision by the Local Division Brussels addresses a costs procedure under Rule 156 RoP concerning the recovery of representation costs. The court clarified the burden of proof regarding claimed costs, the timing for requests to adjust the recoverable costs ceiling, and the scope of recoverable representation costs. The ruling establishes that claimants bear the burden of proving their claimed costs and must submit supporting evidence, while the court retains discretion to apply the cost ceiling as a safety net based on equity considerations.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE and the counterclaim for revocation filed by IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG jointly. The decision was made before the close of the written proceedings for reasons of procedural economy and to allow early assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's petition for review of a Registrar's decision rejecting his application for registration on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had filed his application on 27 March 2025, well after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules expired on 1 June 2024. The Court held that the transitional period is, as a rule, not subject to extension or exception, and that a clerical error by the applicant's paralegal department did not justify reinstating his right to registration.
Hanshow Germany GmbH v.Respondent
1 Décision de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande de retrait (R. 265 RdP) et une demande de remboursement des frais de procédure (R. 370.9 RdP) rendue le 24 juillet 2025 APPELANTE (DEMANDERESSE DANS LA PROCEDURE DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL DE PREMIERE I
Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning the arrangement of private interpreters at an upcoming oral hearing in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent No. 2 515 768. The claimants, Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC, requested permission to bring two private interpreters at their own cost to the oral hearing scheduled for August 6, 2025. The presiding judge ruled that the interpreters could participate from the Overflow Room 220b rather than the main courtroom 212, which lacks interpreter booths, and rejected the remainder of the request.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for review challenging the Registrar's refusal to enter the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted a CEIPI certificate dated 8 July 2022, which predated the Administrative Committee's November 2023 accreditation decision under Rule 1 of the EPLC Rules. The Court held that there is no de facto continuity between an accredited course under Rule 1 and a course referenced in Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules, and therefore the applicant did not possess a valid certificate at the time of filing.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L.
This order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 24 July 2025, concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. The court confirmed its earlier order of 20 June 2025, holding that a FRAND counterclaim is not merely a defence to the infringement action but expands the subject-matter and value in dispute of the proceedings. The court rejected the Defendants' arguments that the FRAND counterclaim should be treated like a counterclaim for revocation for fee purposes or that it should be exempt from court fees.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal reviewed a petition challenging the Registrar's refusal to register the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The Registrar had rejected the application because it was filed on 18 April 2025, outside the one-year transitional period from the entry into force of the UPC Agreement on 1 June 2023, as required by Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules. The applicant argued that Rule 12.1 only defines when a qualification is deemed appropriate and does not impose a filing deadline. The President upheld the Registrar's decision, confirming that the transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules is, as a rule, not subject to extension or exception.
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.