European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 47 of 73 · 2,185 total
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. The plaintiff Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation against three Vantiva entities. By agreement of both parties, the court ordered the suspension of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the plaintiff's application of April 9, 2025.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Kodak's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning EP 3 511 174. The Local Division had found infringement, ordered a permanent injunction with penalties, damages, information, destruction and recall orders, and dismissed Kodak's counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal held that Kodak failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision contained manifest errors justifying an exception to the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA.
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. , Pfizer AB v.Promosome LLC
Promosome LLC filed 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 and various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant, arguing it was only produced and sold before 1 June 2023, relying on Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The judge-rapporteur deferred the preliminary objection to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, expressing a non-binding view concurring with existing UPC case law that the UPC has subject-matter competence over allegedly infringing acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force.
BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP. v.Respondent
This case concerns an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 479 680 before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The defendants filed an application under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking leave to submit further written arguments regarding alleged contradictory positions taken by the first plaintiff in a parallel US Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding involving a related patent (US 8,868,772). The defendants contend that the plaintiff's arguments before the US PTAB regarding features corresponding to features 1.2 and 1.3 of the patent in suit contradict the plaintiff's infringement assertions in the present proceedings.
Emboline, Inc. v.Respondent
1. The one who files a counterclaim for revocation (Art. 32 (1) e) UPCA) is an “Applicant” according to Art. 69 (4) UPCA. 2. Anyone who claims that he would be driven into insolvency in case of an injunction to desist, confirms that his financial position gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable. Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_628/2024 ACT_58638/2024 App_8962/2025 2 APPLICANT (CLAIMANT IN THE INFRINGEMENT PROCE
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the commencement of the reply deadline in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 215 288. The plaintiffs (Heraeus) sought an extension of their reply deadline to May 2, 2025, arguing that members of their Confidentiality Club only gained access to the unredacted pleadings on April 1, 2025, rather than March 17, 2025 as the court had assumed. The defendant (Vibrantz) requested clarification that the defendant's reply period begins April 22, 2025 and written proceedings end no earlier than May 22, 2025. The court addressed the question of when time limits begin to run in the context of a provisional Confidentiality Club and the impact of vacation absences of its members.
Siltronic AG v.Respondent
This case concerns an order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf regarding European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, directed at a 'shaped saw wire with controlled curvature at bends.' The applicant, Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd., sought evidence preservation measures against the respondents, Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG. Respondent 1 (Siltronic AG) filed an application under Rules 197.3 and 197.4 of the Rules of Procedure seeking review of the inspection and evidence preservation order. The Chamber issued headnotes clarifying that evidence preservation orders may secure evidence of individual infringing acts, that Rule 196.1 RoP is not an exhaustive catalog of measures, and that such orders may include seizure of delivery notes and invoices where justified by the applicant's evidence preservation interest.
ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A v.Dainese S.p.A.
1. The UPC “shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State” pursuant the Article 71a of the Regulation (EU) n. 1215/2012 (recast) as amended by Regulation (EU) 542/2014. Its interpretation provided for by the Court of Justice of the European Union apply to the UPC as it were a national court. 2. In light of Court of Justice decision in case C-339/2022, 25 February 2025, UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents ove
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3669828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation notified the court of its intention to enforce specific parts of a decision dated 4 April 2025 pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP. The defendants (Meril entities) agreed not to request a translation and confirmed compliance with the relevant orders, and the court ordered the issuance of an authentic paper copy of the decision.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the bifurcation question under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, citing efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided by the same panel based on a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Syngenta Limited v.Respondent
Syngenta Limited applied to the Local Division Munich for leave to amend its claim to extend the territorial scope of the infringement action to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom, following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (C-3999/22). Sumi Agro opposed, arguing the amendment could have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. The Court granted the application, holding that Syngenta could not reasonably have been expected to include the non-UPC territories in its original statement of claim, and adjusted the procedural timetable accordingly.
expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a cost assessment procedure following the revocation of European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. had sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for patent infringement, but the Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked the patent on October 10, 2024, and dismissed the infringement action. The defendants subsequently filed a cost assessment application on December 12, 2024, seeking recovery of €111,000 in total costs, comprising €100,000 for proceedings costs and €11,000 for court costs of the revocation counterclaim.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.Soltech Energy GbR, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., Energy3000 solar GmbH
This Procedural Order addressed the issue of service of the statement of claim on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) in a patent infringement action concerning European patent No. 4 372 829. A registered letter sent via Deutsche Post was notified for collection on 10 March 2025 but was not collected by the defendant and was returned to the Court marked 'nicht abgeholt' (unclaimed). The Court applied Rule 271.6(b) RoP and deemed the statement of claim to have been served on 14 March 2025, ordering Defendant 4 to file its statement of defence by 16 June 2025.
Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, in which three of the eight defendants (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. They argued that the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., was financially vulnerable as part of the loss-making Maxeon Group and was based in Singapore outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order difficult. The Court found the request admissible and largely well-founded, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 100,000 within six weeks, while granting leave to appeal.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The court decided, with the consent of both parties, to hear the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was based on considerations of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided together by the same panel for a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Headwater Research LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, Headwater Research LLC, for separation of proceedings under Rule 303(2) of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action against five defendants, including Motorola entities, Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Flextronics International Europe B.V. The plaintiff sought to separate the case against the fifth defendant (Flextronics) into its own proceeding and to avoid paying an additional court fee for the separated case. The fifth defendant opposed the application, arguing that the delay was caused by the plaintiff's own insufficient pre-filing investigations.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The court addressed the question of whether service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) via registered letter that was not collected by the addressee should be deemed valid. Applying Rule 271.6.b of the Rules of Procedure, the presiding judge deemed service on Defendant 4 to have been completed on 14 March 2025 and ordered the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED,, Novartis AG, ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V.
The Court of Appeal granted STADAPHARM GmbH's application for public access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute was a declaration of non-infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 501 384, brought by Accord Healthcare entities against Novartis AG before the Milan Central Division. Following the withdrawal of the main proceedings by Accord, Novartis withdrew its objections, and the Court of Appeal reversed the Milan Local Division's earlier order dismissing Stadapharm's access request.
Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Libra Energy B.V., Memodo GmbH, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. Defendants 1, 2, and 4 (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) sought to extend a prior confidentiality order to cover additional green-shaded financial information in their Rejoinder and Exhibit HL 41. The court granted the extension for the specific identified information but rejected the broader request to extend confidentiality to all future submissions as too vague and indeterminate.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Respondent
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA filed a patent infringement action against 14 Pfizer entities concerning European Patent EP 4 183 412 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and did not object to a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 201,600) to the Claimant.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the continuation of the written procedure in a patent infringement action involving EP 4 108 782. The claimants (10x Genomics and Harvard) had initially filed 55 auxiliary requests, which were later reduced to 4 in a revised application to amend the patent submitted on 9 April 2025. The panel held that 4 auxiliary requests is indisputably a reasonable number under Rule 30.1(c) RoP, and ordered continuation of the written procedure given the proceedings had already lasted nearly two years and an oral hearing date had already been agreed.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_597/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 11/04/2025 APPLICANT EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (Applicant) - 302Ho, HUMAX VILLAGE, 216, Hwangsaeul-ro, Bundang-gu - 13595
Ericsson GmbH, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
Ericsson withdrew its second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 and the associated appeal before the Court of Appeal, following the Local Division Munich's rejection of the counterclaim as inadmissible based on a preliminary objection by Motorola. Both parties consented to the withdrawal and agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Ericsson.
Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor SASU v.AIM Sport Development AG
This appeal concerned two orders of the Helsinki Local Division in an infringement action brought by AIM Sport Development AG against several TGI entities (formerly Supponor entities). The appellants challenged orders relating to the amendment of a claim under Rule 263 RoP and the addition of a defendant under Rule 305 RoP. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion under both rules, limiting appellate review, and clarified the procedural requirements for applications under these provisions.
ALIUD PHARMA GmbH v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_698/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 10/04/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) ALIUD PHARMA GmbH (Applicant) - Gottlieb-Daimler-Str. 19 - 89150 - Laichingen - DE Represented b
Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109 B1, which is in force in Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, and Slovenia. The plaintiffs, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich (along with third-party counterdefendant Alexander Christ), allege that the defendant, Knaus Tabbert AG, infringes the patent. The decision addresses two key legal questions: the interpretation of product-by-process claims and the jurisdiction over financial compensation claims for the use of a published European patent application.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'directly or indirectly' in claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach in the case heading. The court partially granted the application, correcting the clerical error regarding the struck-through phrase but rejecting the request to add another attorney as it did not constitute an obvious inaccuracy.
TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., LG Electronics European Holding B.V., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschlan v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 9 April 2025 Application: 17158/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Corning - US represented by: Dr. Marcus Grosch, Qui
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses the withdrawal of various applications filed in the course of infringement proceedings. After third party Erik Krahbichler withdrew his application for access to the file, defendants Meril filed applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. Following guidance from the judge-rapporteur referencing a similar order from the Central Division Paris Seat, Meril withdrew these applications, and the court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech SE, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant Promosome LLC proposed significantly lower amounts. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly, rejecting the request for a default decision as premature.
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.