European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 39 of 73 · 2,185 total
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.Respondent
1 DECISION 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 DANS LA PROCEDURE D’APPEL APL_2052/2025 ET INTIMEE DANS LA PROCEDU
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1, in which the plaintiff Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG filed a patent infringement action against CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, and the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before the written proceedings were concluded, both parties filed requests on July 14, 2025 to withdraw their respective claims following an out-of-court settlement. The court allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaim, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the partial reimbursement of unused court fees to the plaintiff.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for review challenging the Registrar's refusal to register the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted his application on 21 February 2025, after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules had expired on 1 June 2024. The Court held that the one-year transitional period does not violate the principles of equality and proportionality, and that the applicant's health-related personal circumstances did not justify the delayed submission.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for further exchange of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP. The Court granted OTEC two weeks to file further written pleadings in response to new experimental evidence and arguments introduced by STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. for the first time in its Statement of Response regarding an alleged embodiment of the patent EP 4 249 647.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 726 883, in which the Claimant QIAGEN Sciences, LLC sought an extension of time to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation. The Defendants had filed a confidentiality application alongside their defence, delaying the Claimant's access to unredacted documents. The court granted the extension, with the Defendants' consent, extending the deadlines to 15 September 2025.
Visibly Inc. v.Respondent
Visibly Inc. appealed an order of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for legal costs in its patent infringement action against Easee. After the proceedings were stayed due to insolvency proceedings against the Easee companies, Visibly applied to withdraw the appeal citing an out-of-court settlement, to which Easee consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Visibly.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
This enforcement proceeding arose from a decision of 2 April 2025 in UPC_CFI_365/2023 concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, in which FUJIFILM sought to enforce operative parts requiring the Kodak defendants to provide information, destroy infringing embodiments, recall products, and remove them from channels of commerce. The Mannheim Local Division found that the defendants had failed to comply with these obligations despite proper notification and service, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding lack of warning and insufficient translations. The court imposed a three-pronged penalty regime including a lump-sum payment of €100,000, daily penalties of €2,500 until 4 August 2025, and escalated penalties of €10,000 per day thereafter.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
- Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. - A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightfo
ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH for revocation of an evidence preservation and inspection order under Rule 198.1 of the EPG Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich addressed whether the rapporteur could retroactively change the starting date of the deadline for initiating main proceedings, given that the court-appointed expert had delivered the inspection report later than originally anticipated. The court held that while the length of the deadline is fixed, the starting date is within the court's discretion and may be modified, particularly when the expert submits the report late.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
- Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. - A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightfo
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.,
This decision concerns the withdrawal of a cost assessment application filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V. before the Court of Appeal. Philips had filed the application by mistake, as cost assessment applications fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (Local Chamber Munich). The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal under Rule 265(1) of the Rules of Procedure without requiring a hearing of Belkin, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered no separate cost decision.
TIRU v.Respondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_132/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 22/07/2025 REQUERANT (Demandeur à la procédure au principal) TIRU 7, rue du Dr Lancereaux 75008 Paris Représenté par Cyrille AMAR, cabinet Amar Goussu
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Respondent
An order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 716 655, addressing a precautionary request by the claimant to harmonize time periods in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, holding that the counterclaim for revocation was only effectively served on the claimant on 10 July 2025, and therefore the time period for filing a defence to the counterclaim for revocation did not commence before that date.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. v.Sun Patent Trust
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_361/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 31/07/2025 concerning the protection of confidential information APPLICANT 1) Sun Patent Trust 437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor 10022 - New York – US Represented by Sabine A
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH v.Sun Patent Trust
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_362/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 31/07/2025 Concerning the protection of confidential information APPLICANT 1) Sun Patent Trust 437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor 10022 - New York – US Represented by Caroline
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation brought an infringement action against Meril Life Sciences and related entities concerning European Patent 3 769 722, which relates to a low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valves. The defendants denied infringement and filed counterclaims for revocation, along with conditional applications to amend the patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) found the patent valid as amended, held that the defendants infringed claim 1, and ordered injunctive relief, corrective measures, provisional damages of EUR 500,000, and cost awards in favor of Edwards.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich following a FRAND interim hearing concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The court, presided over by Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, set out directions for the parties to exchange further written submissions on the FRAND objection, with ASUS permitted to file further submissions by August 11, 2025 and Lenovo to respond by September 1, 2025. The order also addressed scheduling matters, including a video conference interim hearing on September 25, 2025 and the confirmation of the oral hearing on November 19, 2025.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Sibio Technology Limited filed a revocation action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 831 283 B1, which relates to in vivo analyte monitoring devices. Sibio challenged the patent's validity on grounds of added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the alleged grounds for invalidity were either inadmissible as late-filed or not proven, and ordered the patent to be maintained as granted with costs borne by Sibio.
UPC Decision UPC-000540 v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities before the Unified Patent Court Local Division Mannheim for infringement of EP 3 511 174 B1, a European patent relating to lithographic printing plate precursors. The proceedings concerning the UK part of the patent were separated following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court held that while it has jurisdiction to decide infringement of the UK part of a European bundle patent, it cannot revoke the UK part with erga omnes effect, and the defendants may raise invalidity as a defense with inter partes effect only.
bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This procedural order concerns two related revocation cases before the Court of First Instance, Central Division Milan, involving European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The court addressed procedural matters following an interim conference, including an opposition filed by bioMérieux France, confirmation of exhibits, and the management of an excessive number of invalidity attacks. The court directed bioMérieux to narrow its inventive step attacks and focus on specific added matter arguments, while structuring the upcoming oral hearing and setting deadlines for further submissions.
UPC Decision UPC-000538 v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, in Germany and the United Kingdom. The Mannheim Local Division separated the proceedings regarding the UK part of the patent following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court assessed the validity of the UK part as a mere prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect, found the patent invalid, and dismissed the infringement action with costs borne by FUJIFILM.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This Procedural Order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Central Division Milan, on 18 July 2025, managing two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The court addressed the management of bioMérieux's extensive invalidity attacks (approximately 50 attacks based on 16 prior art citations) and directed bioMérieux to narrow its arguments, preferably to three inventive step attacks and specific added matter features. The court also set deadlines for submissions and preliminary cost estimates, and outlined the structure of the upcoming oral hearing.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against Meril Lifesciences and related entities concerning European Patent EP 2 628 464 B1 relating to the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis Myval™ THV. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and proceedings were stayed pending the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal decision, which upheld the patent in amended form. The parties subsequently reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm the settlement agreement by decision, along with partial reimbursement of court fees.
Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Dr Reddy's Srl
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference on 17 July 2025, addresses procedural matters including the timeline for the oral hearing, expert testimony on obviousness, and confidentiality issues regarding interim damages calculations. The court confirmed the oral hearing dates of 14–17 October 2025 and the final interim conference for 12 September 2025.
Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi B.V. v.Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare BV
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 17 July 2025, following an interim conference in consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent n° 2 493 466. The order addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025, expert testimony on obviousness issues related to the Phase III TROPIC study, and confidentiality arrangements regarding interim damages calculations. The claimants are various Sanofi entities, and the defendants comprise four groups: Accord Healthcare entities, STADA entities, Reddy Pharma/betapharm/Dr Reddy's entities, and Zentiva entities.
PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by the first respondent, PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., to postpone the oral hearing scheduled for September 1, 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. The Mannheim Local Chamber denied the postponement request, holding that the inherent urgency of interim measure proceedings requires very special circumstances for a postponement, and that vacation absences of legal and patent attorney representatives do not qualify as such. The court further offered the parties an opportunity to raise objections to the first respondent's participation via video link by July 24, 2025.
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of 2 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 511 174. The defendants (Kodak entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for information they were required to disclose during enforcement. The court rejected the request, holding that the defendants should have raised confidentiality in the main proceedings, that the main decision already restricted use of the information to the stated purposes, and that no specific risk of misuse was demonstrated.
Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s. v.Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning four related infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference, addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of expert testimony via hot tubbing on obviousness issues, confidentiality arrangements regarding Sanofi's damages calculations, and the format of Sanofi's future briefs. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference (12 September 2025) and the oral hearing (14-17 October 2025).
Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADAPHARM GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in patent infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The order addresses pending issues including the awaited written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent at an oral hearing in June 2025), ongoing French appeal proceedings regarding invalidation of the French part of the patent, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference and oral hearing, and addressed procedural matters including confidentiality of interim damages calculations and the format of Sanofi's briefs.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 839 403, in which the defendants (Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.) sought a three-week extension of time to file their rejoinder and reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation. The defendants argued they needed additional time to respond to new technical arguments involving third-party-developed software applications and security environments. The Mannheim Local Division granted the extension, finding justified exceptional circumstances existed, and extended the relevant deadlines to 11 August 2025.
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.