European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 45 of 73 · 2,185 total
Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva France
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in four consolidated sets of patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for treating castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva generic pharmaceutical companies across various UPC member states. The order addresses preliminary objections, sets further procedural deadlines, and confirms dates for interim conferences and the oral hearing.
Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France v.Dr Reddy's Srl, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel for use in treating prostate cancer. The claimants, comprising multiple Sanofi entities, brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur ordered that preliminary objections be dealt with in the main proceedings and set out the schedule for the remaining written and oral procedure.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a request by the Claimant, Polidoro S.p.a., to extend the deadline for filing its reply brief in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 037 175. The Claimant sought a one-week extension because the Statement of Defence was initially served in redacted form, with access to the unredacted version only granted later. The court found the extension justified and extended the deadline until 19 May 2025.
Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. v.Respondent
Yealink applied for rectification of a final order issued by the Local Division Brussels on 21 March 2025 in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, seeking to amend the operative part to explicitly characterize the cost award as an 'interim award' and add a reference to Rule 211(1)(d) RoP. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the grounds for rectification under R. 353 RoP are limited to clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions, none of which were present. The Court reasoned that the order must be read as a whole, and the existing reference to R. 150(2) RoP already encompasses the concept of an interim award of costs.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
This case before the Milan Local Division concerned the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving patent EP3076673 against Digital River Ireland Ltd. following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland. Both Ericsson and Digital River agreed to mutual withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, but disagreed on costs. The Court allowed the withdrawals, ordered the main proceedings to continue against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato), and held that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Inc., Apple GmbH v.Ona Patents SL, Ekahau Oy
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing an application to protect confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the unredacted version of the Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence regarding the Application to amend the patent as confidential, restricting access to specified representatives and the CEO of the Claimant.
Meril GmbH v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R.262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case between Meril GmbH and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris order granting access, holding that access should not be granted to unrepresented members of the public, and that the Statement of response lodged by an unauthorized representative constituted a decision by default. The Court also rejected Meril GmbH's request for costs.
Meril Italy v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Central Division Paris that had granted a member of the public access to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825. The Court of Appeal held that access under R. 262.1(b) RoP should not be granted to members of the public who are not represented by an authorised representative, and dismissed the underlying application. The Court also rejected Meril Italy's request for compensation of costs.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris's order granting access, holding that access to written pleadings and evidence should not be granted to members of the public who are not properly represented. The Court also held that compensation for costs should not be awarded in relation to such applications.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 2 May 2025 in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The order addresses preparatory matters for the oral hearing, including translation requirements, publication requests, cost estimates, and time limits for oral submissions. The court set a deadline of 9 May 2025 for the parties to respond to the court's requests and information.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV (Applicants) v.***
This provisional procedural order (Order IV) was issued by the Local Division Brussels on 2 May 2025 in case UPC_CFI_131/2025 concerning a request by claimants OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV for payment of litigation costs assessed at €92,814.62 under Rule 151 RoP in proceedings involving EP 2 233 036. The dispute centered on whether the costs proceedings should be suspended pending the defendant's appeal filed on 17 March 2025 against the LD Brussels decision of 17 January 2024 in UPC_CFI_376/2023. The claimants argued that under Article 74(1) UPCA, appeal has no suspensive effect and that no legal basis exists for delaying the costs decision.
Evac Oy v.Respondent
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Evac Oy regarding European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1 against six defendants, including a Chinese company, German companies, and individual persons. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 6 (S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH, Katharina Kiran Singh Kang, and Shaminder Singh Kang) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure. The proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 (Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, and Yong Cao) were ordered to continue, and no cost decision was required as the parties had agreed on costs.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
The Walt Disney group of companies and BAMTech LLC (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) filed an application requesting a change of the language of proceedings from German to English before the Local Division Mannheim. The underlying infringement action was brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. based on European Patent EP2465265 concerning methods and apparatus for improved intra chroma encoding and decoding. The President of the Court of First Instance considered the application under Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP, weighing the respective interests of the parties and consulting the panel of the Local Division Mannheim.
Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) v.Aesculap AG
This procedural order concerns the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel in interim proceedings involving European Patent No. EP 2 892 442 B1. The applicant Aesculap AG sought interim measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and the respondent challenged the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found it necessary and appropriate to supplement the panel with a technically qualified judge at the interim stage, given the substantive validity challenges raised and the likelihood that such a judge would also be needed in parallel main proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation, proprietor of European patent EP 4 201 327 relating to fluid delivery devices (insulin patch pumps), sought provisional measures against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for allegedly infringing the patent with its EOPatch and GlucoMen Day Pump products. The Milan Central Division (Court of First Instance) rejected the application, finding claim 1 likely lacked novelty. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the Court of First Instance improperly delegated claim construction to an expert, and granted the provisional measures against EOFLOW across multiple UPC Contracting Member States.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.Respondent
In an appeal from a revocation action concerning EP 3 498 115, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs, with the agreement of NJOY. The stay was ordered pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where oral proceedings had been scheduled for 17 October 2025. The court found that a decision from the Boards of Appeal could be expected rapidly relative to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Anker Innovations (Netherlands) B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order was issued by the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action brought by Powermat Technologies, Ltd. concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 against six Anker-related entities and Fantasia Trading LLC. The dispute concerned the establishment of uniform service dates and time periods for all defendants. The court granted the parties' joint request to set a uniform service date of 30 April 2025 for all defendants, with preliminary objection deadlines ending on 30 May 2025 and statement of defence deadlines ending on 30 July 2025.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's request to replace three of nine members of the confidentiality club established under Rule 262A RoP in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 476 616. The defendants (Kodak entities) opposed the request, arguing that the circle of persons with access to confidential information should not be expanded. The Mannheim Local Division allowed the request in part, permitting two replacements whose substitutes already had access to confidential information from parallel proceedings, but rejecting the third replacement.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Court addressed the Defendant's late application to make a sample available for inspection, noting that the Defendant had not provided reasons for submitting the sample after the closure of written proceedings and only one week before the hearing. The Court indicated it was considering disregarding the late submission under R. 9.2 RoP and would decide on the issue at the oral hearing.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
The judgment text is not available as the order has been temporarily removed and is to be replaced. No factual details, arguments, reasoning, or outcome can be extracted from the provided text.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS, Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, Gucci Logistica S.p.A.
AGFA NV, a Belgium-based company specializing in industrial inkjet technology, sued nine European entities belonging to the French luxury conglomerate Kering (including Guccio Gucci S.p.A. and related companies) in connection with European Patent EP 3 388 490 B1 titled 'Decorating Natural Leather.' The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in its entirety. The Local Division Hamburg addressed key issues including the scope of counterclaim attacks under Articles 32(1)(e) and 65(1) UPCA, claim interpretation using the patent as its own lexicon, and the admissibility of late-filed validity arguments and prior art documents introduced for the first time at the oral hearing.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V, The Walt Disney Company Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application under Rule 323 RoP by the Defendants (various Disney entities and BAMTech) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action based on European Patent EP2449782. The Claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., had initiated proceedings on 3 February 2025. The order addresses the procedural requirements for hearing all potentially affected parties before a language change can be granted, and clarifies that changing the language to the language of the patent does not conflict with the Claimant's initial choice under R. 14.1 RoP.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This order concerns an application by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in defending against ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision in a patent revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court confirmed its prior reasoning that an application to set aside a default decision is an internal procedural remedy not suitable for a decision on the merits, and therefore does not require a separate decision on costs. The Court held that such costs can be claimed and assessed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation proceedings that concluded with the default decision.
Scandit Inc, Scandit AG v.Respondent
Hand Held Products Inc. brought an infringement action against Scandit AG and Scandit Inc. concerning European Patent EP4163816, and Scandit filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before substantive adjudication, the parties reached a settlement and both filed applications to withdraw their respective claims. The Local Division in The Hague granted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by each claimant.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG M
ArcelorMittal filed an infringement action on 18 October 2024 before the Paris Local Division against multiple XPENG entities and related automotive distributors based on European Patent EP3290200 concerning coated steel strips. On 7 April 2025, following a settlement, ArcelorMittal applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP and requested reimbursement of 60% of the procedural fees paid. The defendants confirmed the settlement and requested a stay of proceedings under Rule 295 RoP.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH filed an application for a cost decision against Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, seeking reimbursement of EUR 112,300.00. The respondents objected to the amount, certain travel expenses, and requested a stay of proceedings pending an appeal against the decision on the merits. The Court rejected the request for a stay, holding that the mere existence of a pending appeal does not justify suspending cost proceedings, as this would allow the unsuccessful party to indefinitely delay cost decisions.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.Respondent
In an action for revocation, where both parties agreed to a stay, the appeal proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where the opposition proceedings could be expected to result in a final decision before or just after, in any case rapidly, in relation to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Asustek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.) under Rules 262A and 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to certain confidential documents (referred to as 'Asustek Confidential Documents') in proceedings involving alleged infringement of European patent EP3076673. The Defendants sought to limit access to the unredacted versions of these documents to a defined circle of individuals, including the Claimant's authorized representatives, one private licensing/valuation expert, and one named natural person from the Claimant. The Claimant filed a response to the application, and the judge-rapporteur issued a preliminary order granting the Claimant time to file comments.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a dispute between Nera Innovations Ltd. and several Xiaomi entities regarding European Patent EP2642632. The defendants sought to have the plaintiff's arguments regarding the patentability of auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A, raised in the reply to the patent amendment request, disregarded as late-filed under Rule 9.2 RoP. The court rejected the defendants' request, holding that when auxiliary requests combine previously explained auxiliary requests, a reference to those earlier explanations in the patent amendment request is sufficient, and that merely deepening submissions in the reply does not constitute late filing.
Stanley Black & Decker Inc. , Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3953541, owned by Viking Arm AS, which initiated an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the same patent. The parties subsequently reached a mutual agreement to discontinue the proceedings, with Viking Arm withdrawing the infringement action and Stanley withdrawing the counterclaim for revocation.
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.