European UPC Patent Cases
1,878 decisions indexed
Page 42 of 63 · 1,878 total
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
This preliminary procedural order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, on February 7, 2025, in proceedings brought by Dainese S.p.A. against multiple defendants including Alpinestars entities and retailers. Dainese sought an extension of its deadline for filing its Defence to Counterclaims for revocation and its Reply to the statements of defence filed by Defendants 2 and 6, from February 13, 2025 to February 27, 2025, citing coordination with an EPO oral hearing scheduled for February 13, 2025. The Court granted the extension, finding that the same coordination reasons previously accepted for Defendant 1 applied equally to the Claimant, and emphasized the principle of parity between attacking and defending parties.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich addressed a preliminary objection raised by Motorola Mobility LLC against a second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 filed by Ericsson. Motorola argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to lis pendens, as the validity of the same patent was already subject to prior proceedings between the same parties in the same court. The Judge-rapporteur allowed the preliminary objection, holding that Article 33(2) UPCA applies equally when the same parties bring duplicative actions on the same patent before the same division, and dismissed the second counterclaim as inadmissible without a separate costs decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court on 5 February 2025 in an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation concerning European patent n° 3669828. The order summons the parties to an oral hearing scheduled for 11 February 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Munich, and provides standard procedural information regarding review, public access, audio recording, and consequences of absence.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request under Rule 36 RoP filed by the Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd, seeking further exchanges of written pleadings in an infringement action based on European Patent EP3155936 against NUC Electronics entities and Warmcook. Hurom sought a declaration that certain sections of its Rejoinder challenged by the Defendants were admissible, or alternatively, permission for both parties to submit further statements. The Defendants opposed the request, arguing that the allegedly new arguments were mere clarifications and that, as defendants in infringement proceedings, they should have the last word.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a jointly filed counterclaim for revocation before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The parties, Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and several Xiaomi entities along with Odiporo GmbH and Shamrock Mobile GmbH as defendants, reached a settlement and jointly withdrew their respective claims regarding European Patent EP 3069315. The court issued the order in accordance with the parties' jointly expressed will and addressed the reimbursement of court fees, granting a 40% reimbursement and rejecting the request for a higher 60% reimbursement.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order following the parties' settlement, resulting in the withdrawal of the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against several Xiaomi entities and other defendants, as well as the joint nullity counterclaim filed by the defendants. The court confirmed the parties' agreement and addressed the cost consequences, including an increase in the dispute value from 4 to 8 million euros, which led to additional court fees owed by the plaintiff.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V., ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED, Novartis AG
This is a preliminary order concerning an application by STADAPHARM GmbH under Rule 261.1(b) RoP seeking access to written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings (UPC_CFI_698/2024) pending before the Milan Central Division. The main proceedings involve a declaratory non-infringement action brought by three Accord Healthcare Group companies against Novartis AG regarding Novartis's patent EP2501384 (relating to Nilotinib). STADAPHARM claimed a specific interest in accessing the documents because Novartis had obtained a preliminary injunction against STADAPHARM before the Munich Regional Court based on the same patent. The order addresses procedural questions regarding the scope of Rule 262.1(b) access applications, the lodging of non-digitally signed submissions under Rule 4.1 RoP, and the hearing of parties under Rule 264 RoP.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court amended its prior order of 23 December 2024 to add three named individuals to the group of persons authorized to access confidential information, while rejecting the request to grant a fourth individual (Ms. [...]) separate access.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The parties reached a settlement and jointly filed applications on December 20, 2024, to withdraw the proceedings following the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ruled that each party bears its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 548 648, which relates to a mill for crushing/grinding material, particularly wood chips. Both parties are providers of forestry machinery. The plaintiff, Rematec GmbH & Co KG, as the proprietor of the patent, alleged that the defendant, Europe Forestry B.V., infringed the patent by selling mills marketed as 'Europe Grinders' and 'Europe Chip Mills.' The defendant raised a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim held an oral hearing on November 27, 2024, and rendered its decision on January 31, 2025.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
This is a preparatory order issued by the Mannheim Local Division in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 476 616, brought by FUJIFILM Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order sets out preliminary views and questions ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 11–13 February 2025, addressing issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law for pre- and post-UPCA infringing acts, the value of the dispute, prior use defences, and validity questions concerning prior art documents WO 379 and US 952.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities regarding European Patent No. 2 793 430. The defendants jointly requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence with Counterclaim for Revocation to 11 March 2025. The Presiding Judge granted the request based on the parties' agreement and the minimal extension period involved.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 511 174, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese for its representatives at the oral hearing, which the Kodak defendants opposed. The court allowed FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense but declined to make the interpretation costs part of the proceedings' costs.
Dexcom Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerned infringement proceedings and counterclaims for revocation brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited regarding European Patent EP4070727. All parties requested withdrawal of their respective claims and consented to the closure of the proceedings, with no cost decision requested. The Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant, amounting to EUR 7,400, while setting the value of the cases at EUR 4,000,000.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_468/2023 Final decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 29/01/2025 concerning confirmation by the Court of a settlement APPLICANT C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED 3 Bramley's Barn, The Menagerie, Skipwith Road - YO19 6ET - Escrick - GB Rep
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Respondent
Qualcomm Incorporated filed a patent infringement action on 17 July 2024 before the Local Division Munich against six defendants concerning European patent EP 2 286 325. After reaching a settlement with Defendant 1 (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings), Qualcomm withdrew the action on 17 January 2025 and applied for a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of €18,600.00 to the Claimant.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
1. If the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State (here: Germany), the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK part of the patent in suit. This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. The terms used in a
Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 1 838 002, in which patent attorney Christian Läufer requested access to court filings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure as a member of the public for learning and training purposes. Neither the plaintiff (Avago Technologies) nor the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) raised objections to the request. The presiding judge granted the applicant access to the filings and annexes in the counterclaim for revocation workflow, but not to the infringement proceedings file or other workflows.
SnowPixie Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by the defendant in infringement proceedings for the Local Chamber Munich to order the plaintiff to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. The applicant argued that the plaintiff, a small enterprise, lacked sufficient financial means, citing a low credit rating and recent operating losses. The court ordered security for costs but reduced the amount based on equity considerations, while rejecting the plaintiff's application for legal aid because it was capable of bearing both its own costs and the ordered security.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The plaintiff Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. brought the action against three ASUS entities. The presiding judge scheduled an interim hearing via video conference for September 25, 2025, and an oral hearing in person for November 19, 2025, in Munich, with deadlines for parties to submit proposed topics and cost estimates.
UPC Decision UPC-000979 v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a cost reimbursement application filed by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited following the withdrawal of its request for interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912. The applicant initially sought 60% reimbursement of court fees but, following a court indication, amended its request to seek 20% reimbursement pursuant to Rule 370.11 in conjunction with Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure, applied analogously. The Local Division Munich found that Rule 370.9(b) RoP, which literally governs fee reimbursement upon withdrawal of a 'claim' under Rule 265, applies analogously to the withdrawal of a request for interim measures due to a regulatory gap and comparable interest situation.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
The defendant in an underlying patent infringement proceeding applied for an order requiring the plaintiff to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure, citing the plaintiff's poor credit rating and recent operating losses. The plaintiff opposed the application and alternatively sought legal aid. The Local Chamber Munich ordered the plaintiff to provide security in a reduced amount, finding that although the plaintiff qualified as a small enterprise with insufficient assets, equity considerations and the principle of effective access to justice warranted a reduction below the applicant's requested EUR 257,000. Legal aid was denied because the plaintiff was capable of bearing both its own costs and the reduced security.
Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva Pharma GmbH v.Sanofi Mature IP
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court scheduling an interim conference and oral hearing in consolidated infringement actions concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, and Zentiva, k.s. (among other defendants in related proceedings). The Presiding Judge set the interim conference for 17 July 2025 and the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This case concerns the admissibility of a revocation action filed by Photon Wave Co., Ltd. against Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s European patent EP 3404726 before the Paris Local Division. The revocation action was originally brought before the Paris Central Division but was transferred to the Local Division following a preliminary objection order. Seoul Viosys argued that the Local Division lacks jurisdiction under Article 33(4) UPCA and that the action is manifestly inadmissible because Photon Wave, as an intervener in a pending infringement action, is restricted to filing a counterclaim for revocation rather than an independent revocation action.
Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott, Abbott B.V. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 831 282. DexCom had initiated infringement proceedings against the Abbott companies before the Paris Local Division, which were met by a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. On appeal, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and the Abbott companies withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to closure of the proceedings.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 435 866. DexCom appealed a decision of the Paris Local Division that had revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. Following the appeal, both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, and the Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal court fees to DexCom.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the withdrawal of counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND-license offer filed by certain TCL defendants in a patent infringement action brought by NEC Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. Following a settlement and the conclusion of a patent licence agreement, the defendants withdrew both counterclaims and sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees for both counterclaims, and held that a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer is subject to court fees by analogous application of Rule 370 RoP.
Headwater Research LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947. The order addresses multiple applications including Samsung's filing on Headwater's standing to sue, Samsung's confidentiality application, and Headwater's applications for leave to amend its pleadings. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, dismissed Samsung's confidentiality application as superfluous, and set deadlines for further submissions and the Interim Conference.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_472/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/01/2025 Order no. ORD_68843/2024 DAINESE S.p.A. - Plaintiff - against ALPINESTARS S.p.A. - Defendant 1 - and against ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p
ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A, ULRICH HERPICH E.K, Alpinestars S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L. , HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY , MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L. v.Dainese S.p.A.
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_472/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/01/2025 Order no. ORD_68844/2024 DAINESE S.p.A. - Plaintiff - against ALPINESTARS S.p.A. - Defendant 1 - and against ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p
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.