European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 42 of 73 · 2,185 total
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought the action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. The order addresses Defendant 6 (Rubin Medical ApS)'s application for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, which the court found to be admissible and substantively successful.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by ILME against a decision of the Local Division Munich that had rejected ILME's objection under R. 19.1(a) RoP in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 602 692. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of the main infringement action on June 5, 2025. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot under R. 360 RoP, finding that ILME no longer had any legal interest in a decision on the appeal.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal, dated June 17, 2025, addresses an objection (Gegenvorstellung) filed by Knaus Tabbert AG against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute concerns alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The Court of Appeal held that an objection that merely challenges the reasoning expressed in the rejecting order, without raising new substantive grounds, is inadmissible.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.SCHNELL S.p.A., AWM s.r.l.
This is a procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division following an online interim conference held on 5 June 2025 in proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (claimant) and AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. (defendants). The order addresses several procedural matters, including the admissibility of a new version of auxiliary request AR4, which was referred to the Panel for assessment at the oral hearing. The parties were also granted a fifteen-day period to negotiate the value of the infringement action, the value of the counterclaim for revocation, and the amount of recoverable costs.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
10x Genomics, Inc. sued Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1, which relates to methods and products for localised or spatial detection of nucleic acids in tissue samples. The dispute concerned Curio's 'Curio Seeker Spatial Mapping KIT,' a slide-based product with spatially indexed beads used for spatial transcriptomics. The Düsseldorf Local Division found partial infringement, issuing injunctive relief, ordering information/accounting, and awarding damages, with costs split 30% to the Claimant and 70% to the Defendant.
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Steros GPA Innovative S.L., the exclusive licensee of European Patent EP 4 249 647 B1, against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for infringement relating to an electrolytic medium used in electropolishing. The court found that the defendant's attacked embodiment (EF 16-11 electrolyte medium) infringed claim 1 of the patent-in-suit, that the patent was likely valid on the balance of probabilities, and that the weighing of interests favored the applicant. The defendant was ordered to cease and desist from the infringing activities across multiple UPC member states, subject to a recurring penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a joint request by the parties to stay infringement and revocation proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 742 231 in order to facilitate settlement negotiations without the pressure of ongoing litigation. The court granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP until three months after the next oral proceedings of the EPO Board of Appeal in the parallel opposition appeal (T0187/24.-3.4.03), and cancelled the previously scheduled oral hearing of 7 October 2025.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 110 069 B1. The Court held that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the applicable foreign law and its application to demonstrate that enforcement of a potential cost order against the US-based Claimant would be unduly burdensome, and also failed to establish any tangible risk of insolvency.
Corning Incorporated v.Respondent
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. The Claimant (TCL Europe SAS) sought to introduce new added matter arguments and a Swedish Consulting Report into the proceedings, while the Defendant (Corning Incorporated) requested a four-week extension to file its Defence to Revocation. Following a video conference with the parties, the Court accepted their agreement to admit the new pleadings and extend the deadline by two weeks.
ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Norway AS, Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna France SASU, Moderna Biotech UK Limited, Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA, Moderna Sweden AB, Moderna, Inc., v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 12/06/2025 APPLICANT/S – DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGSIN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 1) Moderna, Inc. (Applicant) - 325 Binney Street - M
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., Katun Germany GmbH, Katun Corporation, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, addressing the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided to hear both the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, with the consent of all parties, for reasons of efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The respondent requested simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing from German into English and permission to attend the hearing via video conference. The applicant opposed the interpretation request but did not object to the respondent arranging an interpreter at their own cost, and consented to video conference participation by the respondent's representatives.
Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent
1 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) issued on 9 June 2025 APPLICANT Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB Widenmayerstr. 47, 80538 München, Germany represented by Moritz-Melchior Bloser PART
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned an infringement action by Tiroler Rohre GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 839 083 B9, against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy regarding pile driving tips (Rammspitzen) for tubular piles. The defendants sold competing pile tips under the designations GS115, GS140, and GS170. The defendants raised a counterclaim for revocation and filed an appeal. The court addressed the burden of proof regarding infringement arguments based on circumstances outside the patent claim, holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof for such arguments and that the infringement plaintiff is not required to present arguments about components outside the patent claim under Art. 54 EPGÜ.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 108 413 in a patent infringement action. The Claimant sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its damages claim to include profits from sales of CeraPUR sealing materials and service/maintenance contracts related to the allegedly infringing CeraFLOW machines. The court held that the original request IV. already encompassed all damages from the alleged infringing acts and permitted the clarifying amendment without needing a R. 263 RoP application, while postponing the remaining aspects of the amendment request until after the oral hearing.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed NUC Electronics' application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 028 981. The Court held that NUC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, particularly given that the information disclosure order under Art. 67 UPCA is a measure necessary to ensure a high level of IP protection and is subject to use restrictions already imposed by the first instance.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.SES-imagotag SA
This decision of the Court of Appeal addressed a late application for cost assessment (Rule 151 RoP) filed by Hanshow following interim measures proceedings against VusionGroup concerning EP 3 883 277. The court clarified that the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 RoP begins with service of the substantive decision, not with service of an interim measures order, and that failure to meet this deadline can only be remedied by reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP. The appeal was dismissed, and Hanshow was ordered to bear its own costs of the cost assessment proceedings, except for the court fee.
CeraCon GmbH v.Respondent
CeraCon GmbH, the defendant in infringement proceedings and claimant in a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 4 108 413, sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its counterclaim by introducing a new novelty attack based on prior art document EP 3 868 480 A1 (WO 2021/131055). The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, holding that R. 263 RoP applies in full to counterclaims for revocation and that granting leave where a simple prior art search could have revealed the document would effectively allow any later-discovered document to be introduced.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., brought an infringement action against multiple AYLO entities and related companies alleging literal and, alternatively, equivalent indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680, which concerns a method for presenting a rate-adaptive data stream. The defendants filed a counterclaim for invalidity. The Local Chamber Mannheim addressed key legal questions regarding the doctrine of equivalents, the legal interest in isolated removal of dependent subclaims via nullity counterclaims, and the appropriate number of auxiliary requests under Rule 30.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure.
Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 839 403 before the Mannheim Local Division. The Defendants objected to the Claimant's reply, arguing it introduced new Trusted Applications and Samsung Galaxy S25 models without seeking leave to amend the case under R. 263 RoP. The Court held that the reply did not constitute an amendment of the case as it merely provided further illustrative examples of the attacked embodiment, and dismissed the Defendants' requests while postponing the decision on exclusion of impugned submissions until after the oral hearing.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 05.06.2025 KLÄGERIN PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG, Flachsmarktstraße 8-28, 32825 Blomberg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Rechtsanwalt Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte, Ismaninger Stra
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
In principle, the costs of the proceedings are not covered by confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP or by the attorney-client privilege unless they are specifically indicative of the company's financial capacity, its commercial strategy, or the importance of the patent as a corporate asset. Applying these principles, confidentiality as a general principle might also be granted to costs incurred by companies for legal services relating to litigation and patent protection, since this informatio
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 05.06.2025 KLÄGERIN PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG, Flachsmarktstraße 8-28, 32825 Blomberg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Rechtsanwalt Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte, Ismaninger Stra
Hybridgenerator ApS v.Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, ***
This appeal concerned the composition of the Court when adjudicating on a request for the imposition of periodic penalty payments under R. 354.4 RoP. The Court of Appeal held that such a request must be adjudicated by a panel, not by a single judge. The appeal was brought by Hybridgenerator ApS against an order of the Copenhagen Local Division dated 3 March 2025, which had declined to impose penalty payments on the Respondents in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 238 202.
Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Germany GmbH, Moderna Norway AS, Moderna Sweden AB, ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Biotech Spain SL, Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Biotech UK Limi v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 04/06/2025 APPLICANT/S – DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGSIN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 1) Moderna, Inc. 325 Binney Street - MA 02142 Cambridge
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by 10x Genomics to modify a confidentiality order issued on 11 March 2024 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Applicant sought to replace two named paralegals in the confidentiality club who were no longer available, and alternatively to expand the club to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings. The Court allowed the substitution of the two unavailable paralegals with a new paralegal and a foreign language correspondent, but rejected the broader request to expand the confidentiality club.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning Meril's applications under Rule 353 RoP for rectification of the court's decision of 4 April 2025 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 669 828 (titled 'Prosthetic Heart Valve'). The court granted rectification of five items (1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) relating to corrections of claim references, a date error, translation errors in operative orders, and the claims asserted, but dismissed the remaining three items (4, 5, and 6) as unfounded.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation requested the Mannheim Local Division to issue a warning to the Kodak defendants that non-compliance with the information orders in the judgment of 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023) concerning EP 3 511 174 would result in penalties of up to EUR 30,000 per day. The court rejected the application, holding that the panel had explicitly decided in the main decision not to set a fixed time period for information provision or a penalty amount up-front, and that such matters would be addressed in a subsequent application to impose penalties.
Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 643 717, in which the plaintiff Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. sued defendant Yunex GmbH. Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd applied to intervene in support of the defendant's request to dismiss the infringement claim. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant objected to the intervention, and the presiding judge granted the intervention application, rendering the prior invitation to intervene moot.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal by Tandem Diabetes against a decision of the Central Division Paris dated 18 December 2024, which had dismissed their revocation action concerning EP 2 196 231 (a patent relating to a system for ambulatory drug infusion) and ordered Tandem Diabetes to bear the costs. Following the filing of the appeal, the parties informed the Court of Appeal that they had concluded the proceedings by way of settlement. The Court of Appeal confirmed the settlement pursuant to Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered that each party bear its own costs.
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.