European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 48 of 73 · 2,185 total
Epson Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534, which is essential for the Opus Audio Codec. The main infringement proceedings are brought by Dolby International AB against Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş regarding televisions and electronic devices running Android TV version 5.0 or later. The applicant, Epson Deutschland GmbH, is a defendant in a parallel infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division concerning projectors and Android TV devices, and seeks public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v.Respondent
Procedural order concerning European Patent No. 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. Following a third party's (Erik Krahbichler) withdrawal of his application for access to the file, the defendant Meril Life Sciences withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. The Presiding Judge permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential.
Pfizer AB , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV 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) sought security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant (Promosome LLC) proposed a lower amount. 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 while rejecting the request for a default decision.
Alpinestars 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
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117, filed an application under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its claims by withdrawing all arguments related to EP'117 following an adverse Board of Appeal decision at the EPO, while maintaining its claims regarding EP'364. The defendants contended that the application constituted a partial withdrawal governed by Rule 265 RoP, requiring the claimant to bear the defendants' costs. The Milan Local Division held that Rule 263.3 RoP applies both to limitations of the relief sought (petitum) and to limitations of the cause of action (causa petendi), and that unlike Rule 265 RoP, Rule 263 RoP does not regulate proceeding costs because the proceedings continue against the defendants in relation to the remaining claims.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against three Meril entities (based in Germany, India, and Italy) before the Local Division Munich, alleging that Meril's 'Myval' transcatheter heart valve and 'Navigator' delivery device infringed EP 3 669 828 B2 ('Prosthetic Heart Valve'). Meril contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, while Edwards sought to amend the patent. The Court rejected Meril's preliminary objections on jurisdiction, upheld the patent as amended, found infringement, and ordered cease-and-desist, recall, destruction, disclosure, publication, and provisional damages of EUR 663,000.
Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of a preliminary injunction application filed by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1. The Lisbon Local Division held that R. 150 RoP can apply to cost decisions following the rejection of a preliminary injunction, and applied the principle of proportionality to award only the travel expenses of the representatives (EUR 4,946.22), rejecting the other claimed costs to avoid the risk of double assessment with the subsequently filed main action on the merits.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S v.Fingon LLC
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Samsung in a patent infringement action brought by Fingon LLC regarding EP 2 839 403. The defendants challenged the validity of the claimant's withdrawal of an opt-out and the UPC's temporal jurisdiction over acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force and during the opt-out period. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection, holding that questions of fact and law relevant to both jurisdiction and the merits should be reserved for the main proceedings.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.Respondent
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an infringement action against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Digital River Ireland Ltd. before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. Following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by an Irish court, Ericsson sought leave to withdraw the action against Digital River. The Court allowed the partial withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, directed Ericsson to file an amended Statement of Claim within 10 days, and granted AsusTek two months to file its Statement of Defence from service of the amended pleading.
Pfizer AB , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. v.Promosome LLC
In a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 before the Local Division Munich, the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested under Rule 190 RoP that the Claimant Promosome LLC produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in the proceedings. The Court rejected the request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, finding that the Defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of their defences, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested and the facts they sought to prove.
Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH v.Corning Incorporated
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 April 2025 Preliminary Objections: 8315/2025 8851/2025 10368/2025 8312/2025 8203/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Co
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted EOFlow to withdraw its application for leave to appeal against an order of the Central Division (Milan) that had dismissed EOFlow's application for a cost decision without examination of the substance. Insulet agreed to the withdrawal, and neither party sought a decision on the costs of the leave to appeal proceedings.
BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech SE, BioNTech Europe GmbH , BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH v.Promosome LLC
This case concerns a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) filed an application under Rule 190 RoP seeking to compel the claimant Promosome LLC to produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in support of its infringement claims. The court rejected the defendants' request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, holding that the defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of any defense, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns generic procedural applications filed by Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in an underlying infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, seeking a decision by default against the claimant. Microsoft argued that Suinno failed to provide security for costs within the court-ordered time limit and that the facts justified dismissing the infringement action, dismissing the application to amend the patent, and revoking European patent EP 2 671 173 in its entirety. Suinno did not oppose a default decision against itself, instead seeking confirmation of the patent's validity, a finding of infringement, and payment of €2,000,000 under 'invoice 1331'. The Court addressed the legal framework for default decisions under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174. The court ordered the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent-in-suit because the ECJ decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte), which addressed a fundamental question of European law on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, was only delivered after the oral hearing. The court found it inappropriate to delay the entire decision or hold a second oral hearing, and instead separated the UK-related claims to be dealt with in separate proceedings.
Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the defendants for an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendants argued that because the claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., is domiciled in China, enforcement of any cost decision against it would be highly difficult or nearly impossible. The claimant opposed the motion, contending that basing a security order solely on the nationality or domicile of a party would constitute a priori discrimination not supported by any source of law, and that judgments from numerous countries including Germany have been recognized and enforced in China under Article 267 of the PRC Law of Civil Procedure.
Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S, Ascendis Pharma A/S v.BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning a preliminary objection filed by Ascendis Pharma in an infringement action brought by BioMarin Pharmaceutical regarding European patent 3 175 863 (Variants of C-Type Natriuretic Peptide). Ascendis challenged the validity of BioMarin's withdrawal of opt-out and argued that BioMarin failed to establish the court's competence by not sufficiently alleging infringing acts. The presiding judge rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, finding the opt-out withdrawal valid and that BioMarin had sufficiently shown actual and threatened infringement occurring in Germany.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, and alleging added matter. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement by the defendants' SONORA XTRA-3 product, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH 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 2 April 2025 Applications: 8314/2025 8850/2025 8319/2025 8313/2025 8316/2025 8317/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Co
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, by selling SONORA X, SONORA XTRA-2, and SONORA XTRA-3 products in Germany and the UK. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The Local Division Mannheim revoked the patent entirely in Germany, dismissed Fujifilm's application to amend the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Fujifilm to pay EUR 300,000 in interim costs.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France s.a.i. v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich concerning two related infringement actions (UPC_CFI_54/2024 and UPC_CFI_396/2024) involving European patent EP 2 391 947. Samsung, with Headwater's consent, requested an extension of the deadline to file comments on three pending applications, and the Presiding Judge granted the extension from 3 April 2025 to 8 April 2025, closing the four associated workflows.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerned an application for interim measures filed by MANN+HUMMEL GmbH against SOTRAS - S.R.L. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 762 219. Before any decision on the merits was rendered, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the claimant withdrew its application with the defendant's consent. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, ordered the decision to be entered in the register, and addressed the question of court fee reimbursement.
Amycell LLC v.***
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/04/2025 regarding R.320 – re-establishment APPLICANT E - - – (Defendant in the main action, hereinafter: “Defendant”) Represented by Michal
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_132/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/04/2025 APPLICANT/S TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC (Applicant) - 101 E. Park Blvd., Ste 600 - 75074 - Plano, Texas – US Represented by Thomas Lynker
Szymon Spyra v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/04/2025 regarding R.320 – re-establishment APPLICANT - – PL (Defendant in the main action, hereinafter: “Defendant”) Represented by Michal
UPC Decision UPC-000833 v.Respondent
NJOY Netherlands B.V. appealed a decision of the Court of First Instance (Paris Central Division) dated 29 November 2024, which had dismissed its revocation action against European Patent No. 2 875 740. After filing the appeal, NJOY informed the court that it would not pay the required appeal fee and no longer wished to pursue the appeal, expressly waiving its right to be heard. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as inadmissible by default under Rule 229.4 of the Rules of Procedure.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) seeking rectification of an earlier order dated 9 January 2025, which had dismissed ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s application to set aside a decision by default revoking European patent EP 2 796 333. BMW requested that the earlier order be supplemented to include a provision ordering ITCiCo to bear the costs of the set-aside proceedings. The respondent did not file any written comments despite being invited to do so. The panel addressed the scope of Rule 356 RoP regarding rectification and the nature of cost decisions in the context of internal procedural remedies.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
1. Rule 30 RoP does not restrict the patentee in its request to amend the patent to the requirement that the application and the corresponding auxiliary requests must be directly related to the
Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A., ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns ILME's request to stay the first-instance proceedings before the Local Division Munich pending the outcome of its appeal against a jurisdictional ruling. The Court of Appeal denied the stay request, finding that considerations of efficiency and the administration of justice favored seeking a prompt decision on the jurisdiction question raised under Rule 19 RoP before the main hearing scheduled for June 17, 2025, rather than suspending the first-instance proceedings.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order concerning a withdrawal request under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure. Hand Held Products, Inc. had obtained a preliminary injunction from the Local Division Munich against Scandit AG for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10 of European Patent EP 3 866 051. After Scandit appealed, Hand Held Products requested withdrawal of the provisional measures request, to which Scandit consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and declared the proceedings terminated.
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.