European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 43 of 73 · 2,185 total
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) to classify certain information as confidential under Rule 262A RoP of the Rules of Procedure. The information in question was previously ordered to be provided to the claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.) by a decision of the Local Division Mannheim dated 11 March 2025. The defendants argue that the information contains highly confidential business secrets and have simultaneously lodged an appeal seeking suspensive effect. The claimant opposes the confidentiality request, seeking either dismissal of the request or, alternatively, broader access to the unredacted exhibits for additional named employees.
XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) regarding the competence of the Court under the UPC Agreement. The dispute centers on whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear claims relating to acts of infringement that occurred before the entry into force of the UPCA, and the effect of an opt-out and subsequent withdrawal on the Court's competence. The appellants (XSYS entities) challenged the competence of the Court, while the respondent (Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH) argued that the UPC has jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal addressed the temporal scope of Art. 32(1) UPCA, the transitional regime under Art. 83 UPCA, and the implications of opt-out withdrawals.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
This order concerns a joint request by all parties to stay proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure in relation to one of two patents at issue. Dainese S.p.A. had filed an infringement action against Alpinestars and other defendants concerning EP '117 and EP '364, with counterclaims for revocation filed against both patents. Following an EPO Board of Appeal decision maintaining EP '117 in amended form, Dainese withdrew its infringement claims regarding EP '117, leaving only the revocation counterclaim pending. The Court held that when all parties jointly request a stay under Rule 295(d), the Court has no discretion and must order the stay, and granted the stay solely in respect of EP '117 while allowing proceedings concerning EP '364 to continue.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought an action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. The court issued a decision confirming a settlement reached between the plaintiffs and defendants 1) and 2) (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, ordering confidential treatment of the settlement details and basing the cost decision on the settlement provisions.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S, Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3 175 863. The order addresses the coordination of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation, setting key dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure. The panel also requested the appointment of a technically qualified judge in the field of biotechnology.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288, following an interim video hearing held on May 28, 2025. The dispute involves infringement claims by Heraeus against Vibrantz and a counterclaim for revocation. The order addresses procedural matters including the consolidation of formal requests, the admissibility of the revocation counterclaim for Germany, and the handling of late defendant submissions on factual and legal issues.
Versah LLC v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Versah LLC regarding European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew its claims against the second defendant, Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, following an out-of-court settlement. Both parties agreed that each would bear their own costs, and the court formally approved the partial withdrawal and terminated the proceedings against that defendant.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by the plaintiff, Lionra Technologies Ltd., for retroactive extension of time limits under Rule 9.3(a) RoP, alternatively for reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP, after missing the deadline under Rule 151 RoP for filing a cost submission application. The plaintiff argued that an experienced legal assistant from the litigation secretariat of its representative's law firm overlooked and failed to note the deadline, despite it being listed in a deadline overview specifically maintained for UPC proceedings. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed the legal question of whether a missed deadline can only be remedied by an application for reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP, which takes precedence over Rule 9.3 RoP, and clarified the autonomous interpretation of the standard of care required under Rule 320.1 RoP.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 4 108 413. The court clarified that the claimant validly chose English as the language of the proceedings by filing its statement of claim in English and designating English pursuant to Art. 49(2) UPCA, since English is the language of the patent-in-suit and the claimant alleged infringement in multiple member states.
Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This case concerned an appeal and cross-appeal against an order of the Local Division Munich dated December 17, 2024, regarding coercive fines imposed on Belkin for non-compliance with an information obligation under Article 67(1) EPGÜ. The Court of Appeal addressed five key legal questions relating to the setting of deadlines for providing information, the imposition of coercive fines even after belated compliance, the burden of proof regarding compliance, the scope of required disclosures (including manufacturer prices), and the permissible form of the information. The Court issued five guiding principles clarifying the procedural framework for enforcing information orders and the conditions for imposing coercive fines.
Visibly Inc. v.Respondent
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP3918974, brought a patent infringement action against Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg. Visibly requested that the Defendants provide security for procedural costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure, citing the Defendants' weak financial position. The Court ordered the Defendants to jointly provide security in the amount of EUR 75,000 within four weeks, finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate after balancing the competing interests.
Genentech INC., F.Hoffmann – La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shangai Henlius Biotech INC
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (the proprietors of EP 3 401 335 B1, relating to pharmaceutical formulations of HER2 antibodies used in Perjeta®) applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection against Organon entities and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc., who are preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to inspect the defendants' premises and preserve evidence of alleged patent infringement, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the evidence obtained.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited seeking full revocation of European Patent No. EP 3 655 346 B1, which relates to a pressure pack dispenser for dispensing viscous materials using a composite piston. The claimant argued that the patent lacked industrial application because the claimed invention would not comply with generally accepted laws of physics. The defendant, as patent proprietor, sought to defend the patent and proposed auxiliary requests to amend it. The Court addressed issues of industrial application under Article 57 EPC, the role of drawings in claim interpretation, and the proper order for addressing multiple auxiliary requests.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 4 074 373 B1 brought by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. against three Advanced Bionics entities. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement, and the plaintiff requested admission of the withdrawal of the action with the defendants' consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and declined to order reimbursement of court fees due to extraordinary circumstances.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.
UPC Decision UPC-000670 v.Respondent
- 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
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This case concerns a review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure of an ex parte order for evidence preservation and inspection issued on February 3, 2025. The applicant, Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG, sought evidence preservation measures against ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH in connection with European Patent EP 3 083 107. The respondent challenged the order, arguing that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of patent infringement and the risk of loss of evidence. The court rejected the respondent's request to lift the order, finding that the applicant had presented all reasonably available evidence to support its claim of patent infringement.
CENTRIPETAL LIMITED v.PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This is an order issued by the Court of Appeal concerning an application for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Article 60 UPCA. The order sets out general legal principles regarding the standard of proof required for such applications, the distinction between preservation of evidence proceedings and merits proceedings, and the need to balance the applicant's interest in effective enforcement against the defendant's fundamental rights. The text provided contains only the headnotes of the decision and is cut off before the full reasoning and operative part are disclosed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 4 050 804. The court determined that the value in dispute had been largely underestimated given the commercial scope of the action, which targeted all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of the defendants and involved a FRAND rate discussion. The value of the infringement action was set to €4,000,000 on a preliminary basis, requiring the claimant to pay an additional advance on fees of €26,000.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.Respondent
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1, brought by Aylo Premium Ltd. against DISH Technologies L.L.C. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought full revocation of the patent, while the Defendant filed a Statement of Defence and an Application to amend the Patent, including auxiliary requests. The headnote establishes that the Court can, if requested, limit the scope of revocation of a European patent to national parts validated in individual UPC Member States, with the key legal issues being added matter and claim interpretation.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
This case concerns a procedural order issued by the Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against five Epson entities regarding European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. Epson France SAS filed an objection under Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure, challenging the court's jurisdiction on the ground that Dolby's withdrawal of its prior opt-out from the jurisdiction of the court was allegedly invalid. The dispute centers on whether Dolby's May 11, 2023 opt-out application, which listed the patent in suit on page 97, was properly withdrawn to bring the patent back under the court's jurisdiction.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Central Division (Munich) in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. The court directed the parties to upload their pleadings in the 'Request for amendment of a patent' workflow in the case management system by June 4, 2025, beginning with the defendant's response of February 28, 2025. The order was issued to allow the plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the reply concerning the patent amendment request of May 22, 2025, while reserving the question of whether a separate request and workflow are required for patent amendments for the interim proceedings or oral hearing.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute. SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 643 717 relating to a color and light mixing collective optic, brought an infringement action against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH. STRABAG had installed LED variable traffic signs at certain locations (A12, VKP Kundl, RFB Innsbruck) that it had sourced from Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., which intervened in support of STRABAG. The Court of Appeal issued an order on May 26, 2025, addressing STRABAG's application for suspensive effect against the first instance decision of January 15, 2025.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court addressed a request by the plaintiff, Grundfos Holding A/S, for correction of obvious inaccuracies in the operative part of its earlier decision of May 8, 2025, against the defendant, Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court found the correction request admissible and well-founded, as it was filed within the one-month deadline and the defendant did not object, and accordingly corrected several paragraphs of the operative order.
Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna France SASU, Moderna Germany GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Biotech Spain SL, Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA v.Genevant Sciences GmbH, Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
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 23/05/2025 Moderna, Inc. (Defendant) - 325 Binney Street - MA 02142 - Cambridge - US Statement of claim served on 21/04/2025 Moder
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, Warmcook
This case before the Paris Local Division concerned a patent infringement action brought by Hurom Co., Ltd against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. The court addressed three key issues: the admissibility of amended patent claims (rejecting the defendant's added-matter objection based on alleged intermediate generalization), the procedural framework for objections under Article 34 UPCA regarding the territorial scope of UPC decisions (holding such objections fall outside R.19 RoP), and the claimant's request for infringement remedies in Poland. While the Poland-related claim was admissible following the BSH v Electrolux precedent, the court found it unfounded on the merits due to the claimant's failure to meet its burden of proof regarding specific infringing acts in that territory.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna Biotech UK Limited
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 23/05/2025 Moderna, Inc. (Defendant) - 325 Binney Street - MA 02142 - Cambridge - US Statement of claim served on 21/04/2025 Moder
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against Juul Labs International Inc. regarding EP 3 504 991 before the Paris Central Division, which dismissed the action and ordered NJOY to bear the costs. NJOY appealed the cost decision, but subsequently applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP, with Juul Labs' consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 767 151 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Court of First Instance. Both parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure to allow them to focus on finalizing ongoing settlement negotiations. The Judge-rapporteur granted the stay, formalizing the provisional stay that had already taken effect by email on 21 May 2025, and cancelled the oral hearing originally scheduled for 4 June 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.