European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 46 of 73 · 2,185 total
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 498 115, citing its direct interest as a party to parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings against the same patent. Juul Labs and NJOY objected, arguing the request was overly broad and risked undermining confidentiality. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents already in the casefile, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts until the appeal is closed, while dismissing the remainder of the request.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading Limited's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in appeal proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 430 921, which arose from a revocation action between Juul Labs International Inc. and NJOY Netherlands B.V. The Court found Nicoventures had a direct interest as a party to related validity proceedings. Access was granted subject to a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts, such as the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the appeal is concluded.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to all written pleadings and evidence in appeal proceedings (APL_322/2025) concerning the revocation action over EP 3 504 991, in which NJOY Netherlands B.V. is the appellant and Juul Labs International, Inc. is the respondent. The Court of Appeal held that written pleadings or evidence added to the casefile before a party commented on the request can be covered by a decision granting access, but blanket requests for future documents are not admissible. Immediate access was granted based on Nicoventures' reasoned request and its status as a party to concrete legal proceedings concerning the validity of the patent at issue, subject to conditions protecting the integrity of proceedings.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH, for an extension of deadlines under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement and revocation counterclaim case concerning European Patent EP 3 770 330 B1. The court granted the extension, finding that the USB stick containing key exhibits (MW 3 to 5, MW 17, and MW 27) was only served on the plaintiff on April 15, 2025, nearly two weeks after the defendant's submissions, constituting an exceptional circumstance justifying the relief. The deadlines for the plaintiff's reply to the infringement defense and response to the revocation counterclaim were extended from May 28, 2025 to June 16, 2025.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 DECISION AU FOND du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/04/2025 DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-gil, Pauline Debré Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Laetitia Nicolazzi Gyeongg
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Memodo GmbH, PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, in which the court addressed the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, rather than separating them, citing reasons of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
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.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in preparation for an oral hearing in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., allege infringement against multiple defendants in the AYLO group and related entities. The order confirms the hearing dates of May 7-8, 2025, and raises preliminary questions regarding the formulation of the plaintiffs' claims, particularly whether the alleged infringing embodiments have been sufficiently identified and whether the plaintiffs seek cumulative or sequential examination of the multiple streaming services attributed to the defendants.
Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Maxell, Ltd. against five Samsung entities regarding European patent No. 2 403 266. Samsung filed a Rule 9 application seeking a uniform deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all Defendants, citing disparate actual service dates and anticipated delays in serving the Korean Defendant. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 5 August 2025 for all Defendants and instructing the Registry to enter 5 May 2025 as the virtual service date for all Defendants.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.Alpina Coffee Systems GmbH
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns an application for the protection of trade secrets and confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court classified certain financial information submitted by the defendant — including employee numbers, annual revenue, and annual balance sheet totals — as confidential. Access to this information on the plaintiff's side was restricted to the plaintiff's external attorney and its Chief Financial Officer.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_537/2024 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/03/2025 APPLICANTS 1) Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Defendant) - 11-1 Hokotate-cho, Kamitoba, Minami-ku - 601-8501 - Kyoto - JP Represented by Johannes Heselberger
bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) UPCA to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, where a revocation action was already pending, while proceeding with the infringement action. The Claimant requested the referral and the Defendants did not object, leading the Panel to treat the matter as a unanimous request.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_687/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH had sued defendants Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for patent infringement, while the defendants had filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Following a January 14, 2025 decision largely favoring the plaintiff on infringement and dismissing the invalidity counterclaim, the defendants filed a cost assessment application on February 13, 2025 seeking reimbursement of EUR 9,732.21 in costs related to the infringement proceedings.
Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Pfizer Aps, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer S.r.l., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer Oy v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_687/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A
TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-LINK ENTERPRISES FRANCE, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent No. EP 3 186 937, with Atlas Global Technologies GmbH as plaintiff and four TP-LINK entities as defendants. The proceedings combine an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. With the consent of all parties, the court stayed the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the application filed by Defendants 2 to 4 on 17 April 2025.
Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European patent no. 4 372 829. The order addresses the service of the statement of claim on Defendant 2 (LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.) and extends the deadline for Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation until 21 July 2025, following an agreement between the parties.
Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V., Pfizer Inc, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Pharma GmbH v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_476/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The court addressed the reimbursement of costs arising from the main infringement proceedings and related interim/interlocutory proceedings between Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH as plaintiff and Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH as defendants. The decision establishes that dividing tasks among multiple lawyers and patent attorneys does not generate additional reimbursable costs, and that costs from interim proceedings are separately reimbursable with their own upper limits distinct from the main proceedings.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_476/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. , Amazon.com, Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by Amazon against a decision of the Local Division Munich that had rejected Amazon's request for an unredacted version of documents and information from Nokia in a patent infringement case concerning EP 2 661 892. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of the main action, Amazon informed the Court of Appeal that the appeal had become moot. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by applying Rule 360 RoP, holding that the rule applies not only when the main claim becomes moot but also when the appeal itself becomes moot.
Scandit AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Scandit AG's request for a 20% reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of Hand Held Products' application for interim measures. The Local Division Munich had previously issued an injunction against Scandit for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10 of EP 3 866 051, which Scandit appealed. After the oral hearing, Hand Held Products withdrew its application for interim measures, and the Court of Appeal terminated the proceedings. Scandit sought partial reimbursement of court fees, arguing that the oral proceedings had not yet concluded because no final decision on the merits had been pronounced.
Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Meril's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division finding infringement of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve and delivery catheter system). The Court held that Meril failed to demonstrate that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous or that an exception to the general rule under Article 74(1) UPCA (that appeals do not have suspensive effect) was warranted. Meril's alternative request for a stay of enforcement subject to the provision of security was also rejected.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 18/04/2025 Sur l’accès au public (R.262.1(b) RdP) REQUÉRANT LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. Via Alexander Fleming, 22 47122 - Forlì - IT Représen
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) concerning European patent EP 3 767 151. The Claimant, Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co., seeks full revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter beyond the original and earlier application EP 3 055 603. The Defendant, Häfele SE & Co. KG, contests the revocation and has filed 80 auxiliary requests to maintain the patent in amended form. The order is a Case Management Order issued by the Judge-rapporteur addressing procedural directions, including the uncontested value of the proceedings set at EUR 500,000.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 18/04/2025 Sur l’accès au public (R.262.1(b) RdP) REQUÉRANT LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. Via Alexander Fleming, 22 47122 - Forlì - IT Représen
Genevant Sciences GmbH, Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/04/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) Moderna Belgium S.R.L. (Applicant, defendant 9) in the main proceedings) - Avenue Marnix 23 - 1000 - Brussels - BE Re
TP-Link Deutschland GmbH v.Atlas Global Technologies GmbH
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 353 901 in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation brought by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against four TP-LINK entities. With the consent of the parties, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered a stay of the proceedings against Defendants 2 to 4 (TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, and TP-Link Enterprises France) pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the defendants' application dated March 23, 2025.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/04/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) Moderna Belgium S.R.L. (Applicant, defendant 9) in the main proceedings) - Avenue Marnix 23 - 1000 - Brussels - BE Re
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
Barco N.V. appealed an order of the Local Division Brussels dismissing its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 732 827 and ordering Barco to bear costs up to €112,000. Barco applied for suspensive effect of the appeal regarding the cost order, arguing enforcement difficulties in China and that the cost order was not a concrete payment obligation. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect as unfounded, finding no manifest error and that enforcement risks did not render the appeal devoid of purpose.
BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH v.Promosome LLC
Promosome LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365, targeting several Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant (embodiment 2b), arguing it was produced and sold only before 1 June 2023, making jurisdiction contrary to the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. The judge-rapporteur held that the preliminary objection was admissible but deferred its final determination to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, pending a related Court of Appeal decision.
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.