European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 49 of 73 · 2,185 total
Nichia Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerned an infringement action brought by Nichia Corporation against Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH regarding European Patent EP 2 323 178 B1. The parties settled the dispute during the written procedure, and the court confirmed the settlement pursuant to its procedural rules. The court ordered partial reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff, amounting to 9,000 EUR, and set the dispute value at 1,000,000 EUR.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by ILME against a decision of the Local Division Munich that rejected ILME's objection under Rule 19 RoP. Phoenix, the respondent, requested a three-week extension to file its response to the appeal brief. The Court of Appeal granted only a three-day extension, finding that a longer extension would contradict the principle of equality of arms and that the competence question raised should be resolved expeditiously given the pending main proceedings.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.Cloudflare. Inc.
This order concerns a side proceeding in which the plaintiffs (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) sought information from a third party, Cloudflare Inc., under Rule 191 Alt. 2 of the Rules of Procedure in connection with the main infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680. The rapporteur addressed the plaintiffs' request that he determine that the sought information is not decisive for the decision, combined with a conditional withdrawal of the information request. The court held that such a request for a preliminary determination is inadmissible, but that the conditional withdrawal is to be interpreted as making the information request itself conditional on the information being decisive, and that such an internal procedural condition is permissible even when the information is sought from a non-party.
AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB v.Respondent
This order concerns an application under Rule 262 of the Rules of Procedure by the law firm AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB seeking access to all written submissions and evidence filed in a completed patent infringement case between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO/OROPE concerning EP 2 568 724. The applicant cited a general information interest and a specific scientific interest, as one of its lawyers was working on a commentary on the Unitary Patent system. Panasonic opposed the request as too indefinite and disproportionate, while the defendants did not file observations. The court began its reasoning by applying the guidelines developed by the Court of Appeal in UPC_CoA_404/2023, weighing the effort required for access against the applicant's interests in this particularly complex and voluminous case.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on March 26, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1, relating to a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces. The applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, sole proprietor of the patent, had filed an application on March 25, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stands of the respondents at the Cologne trade fair (Köln Messe). The respondents include STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L., a manufacturer of machines for drag finishing and electropolishing, and a second respondent described as a specialist dealer and customer of the first respondent.
STÄUBLI TEC-SYSTEMS GMBH v.Respondents
This appeal concerned the allocation of costs in a revocation action before the Unified Patent Court after the former patent proprietors waived the patent in suit (EP 3 170 639). Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH had filed a revocation action against the patent proprietors, who subsequently waived the patent. The Court of Appeal addressed whether an exception to the general 'loser pays' rule under Article 69(1) EPGÜ applies when a patent proprietor waives the patent at the outset of revocation proceedings without having provoked the action.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_814/2024 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/03/2025 sur la demande de révision d'une ordonnance ex parte (R. 197.4 RdP) REQUERANT (Défendeur à la procédure au principal) VALINEA ENERGIE rue du Champ du Cerf
Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l.; Amazon EU S.à r.l.; Amazon.com, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This case concerns an infringement action filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against Amazon entities regarding European Patent EP 2 661 892, in which Amazon raised a FRAND competition law defense based on a compulsory license. The dispute at the appellate stage centered on the production of license agreements, with the Local Division Munich having ordered Nokia to produce certain agreements while rejecting Amazon's request for additional agreements and royalty statements. The Court of Appeal issued a procedural order addressing Amazon's request for leave to file a further reply to Nokia's appeal response.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_813/2024 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/03/2025 sur la demande de révision d'une ordonnance ex parte (R. 197.4 RdP) REQUERANT (Défendeur à la procédure au principal) MAGUIN SAS 2, rue Pierre Semard 0280
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v.Barco N.V.
Barco NV, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 732 827, filed an application for provisional measures against Yealink entities before the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court. The Court held that the LD Brussels was territorially competent to hear the application, but dismissed the application for provisional measures due to lack of urgency, finding that Barco had acted negligently or hesitated in seeking relief. Barco was ordered to bear the legal costs of the Yealink defendants up to the applicable ceiling of €112,000.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Hand Held Products, Inc. against Scandit AG and Scandit, Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 819 062, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the defendants. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement, and the defendants subsequently withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared all proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to each side, while noting that no decision on party costs was requested.
Mul-T-Lock France, Mul-T-Lock Suisse v.IMC Créations
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_702/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 21/03/2025 REQUERANTS Mul-T-Lock France 4 avenue d’Ouessant, Bât E 91140 - Villebon-Sur-Yvette - FR Représenté par Stanislas Roux-Vailla
ZENTIVA K.S., ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA v.Respondent
(ROP 313) 1) Parallelism between two cases or the allegation that the outcome of a judgment has a direct impact on another does not establish a legal interest to intervention pursuant to RoP 313. 2) The expression 'made in support, in whole or in part, of a claim, order or relief sought by one of the parties' in Rule 313.2 RoP must be interpreted as meaning that the intervening party's remedies must be non-contradictory to those of the party who has been supported, and therefore in accor
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The plaintiff Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) brought an infringement action against Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH and Omni-Pac GmbH, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together in a joint proceeding.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This cost-setting proceeding arose from a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, in which the plaintiff MSG Maschinenbau GmbH sued defendant EJP Maschinen GmbH. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in its entirety, MSG withdrew the main infringement claim, and the court ordered MSG to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. EJP filed an application seeking reimbursement of €20,797.00 in costs for the infringement proceedings, and the court assessed the reasonableness and proportionality of the claimed cost items under Article 69 of the UPC Agreement and Rules 150–152 of the Rules of Procedure.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) by the Local Chamber Munich concerning the reimbursement of costs arising from prior infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal fully revoked the patent, the plaintiff (MSG Maschinenbau GmbH) withdrew its infringement action, and the court ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of both the infringement proceedings and the revocation counterclaim proceedings, each with a value in dispute of €500,000. The defendant (EJP Maschinen GmbH) filed an application seeking reimbursement of its costs, including €20,797.00 for the infringement proceedings.
Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_146/2024) involving Sanofi entities as claimants and STADA entities as defendants regarding European patent EP 2 493 466. Medac had uploaded a privileged and confidential letter from Sanofi as 'Exhibit 2' in unredacted form, prompting objections from Sanofi. The court permitted the withdrawal of the application and the exhibit, ordered Medac to bear the costs of removing the exhibit from the CMS, imposed a recurring penalty for any future use of the document, and issued a warning to Medac's representative for negligent breach of the Code of Conduct.
Chint Solar Netherlands B.V. , Astronergy Europe GmbH , Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH , Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
With regard to a country that fails to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention, it has to be assumed that an order for reimbursement of costs by the UPC may not be enforceable in this country or just in an unduly burdensome way. Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_425/2024 ACT_42211/2024 App_54919/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS) 1. Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., NO.1 Jisheng Road, Jianshan New Zone, 314415 Haining City, Zhejiang
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
This case concerns a rectification of a scheduling order in an infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court identified a typographical error in Item 4 of the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025 and ordered its correction to accurately reflect the oral hearing arrangements. The corrected Item 4 specifies that the oral hearing is scheduled for 15 January 2026 at 9:00 a.m., to be held in person in Munich.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. ao
This is a procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities concerning European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court scheduled the proceedings, setting dates for the written procedure, interim conference, and oral hearing, and confirmed that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation would proceed together with the parties' consent.
Roku International B.V., Roku Inc. v.Sun Patent Trust
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an objection (Einspruch) filed by the defendants under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure against a patent infringement action based on European Patent EP 2 903 267. The court addressed four key preliminary issues: whether alleged incompatibility of the UPC Agreement with EU primary law constitutes a ground for objection, whether violations of the EU Charter or ECHR can support such an objection, whether the plaintiff must proactively prove its representative's authority regarding the opt-out withdrawal, and the standard for establishing jurisdiction. The court ruled against the defendants on all four points, finding that the objection should be rejected.
Roku Inc, Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB
This procedural order concerns an objection filed by Roku under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure against a patent infringement action brought by Dolby International AB concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258. The defendants argued that the legal framework of the Unified Patent Court is incompatible with EU primary law (TFEU and TEU) and that Art. 267 TFEU is violated, also raising alleged breaches of Art. 47(2) of the EU Charter and Art. 6(1) ECHR. The court rejected these arguments, holding that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a ground for objection under Rule 19(1), and that such an objection cannot be successfully based on violations of the EU Charter or ECHR.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning two consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 866 051. Both parties jointly requested leave to withdraw the main action and counterclaim without a cost decision, and the defendant additionally sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, cancelled the oral hearing, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of the counterclaim court fee to the defendant because the interim proceedings had not yet concluded at the time of withdrawal.
PRINOTH S.P.A. v.XELOM S.R.L.
Prinoth S.p.A., a world leader in the production of snow groomers and tracked vehicles, sought an ex parte order for preservation of evidence, inspection, and seizure against Xelom S.r.l., an innovative start-up belonging to the Technoalpin group. Prinoth alleged that Xelom's newly developed electric snow groomer (Snow Cat), which had been deployed at several ski resorts in Austria, South Tyrol, Trento, Stockholm, and Bolzano, infringed its European patents EP1995159 and EP2507436 relating to snow groomers and their control methods. The Presiding Judge determined that the conditions for extreme urgency were not met and appointed a Judge Rapporteur to convene the applicant for further clarifications regarding documents and search keywords.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg addressed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP concerning international jurisdiction. The claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 792 100, sought an injunction against Xiaomi entities and MediaTek Inc. for alleged infringement relating to Xiaomi smartphones equipped with MediaTek Dimensity processors. The court examined the interplay between Art. 31 UPCA and the Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly Art. 71b(2) and Art. 7(2), to determine whether the UPC has international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled outside the EU for patent infringements committed in UPC Member States.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 646 825, the Local Division Munich addressed competing applications for protection of confidential information filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril in connection with Edwards' cost application. The court distinguished between Rule 262A RoP (restriction of access vis-à-vis parties) and Rule 262.2 RoP (restriction of access vis-à-vis the public and third parties), ultimately granting Edwards protection under Rule 262.2 RoP while rejecting the Rule 262A RoP requests of both parties.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, filed a patent infringement action against six defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. Defendants 4 (Dinno Santé s.a.i., France) and 5 (Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., Netherlands) requested simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for April 9, 2025, citing insufficient German language skills of their attending representatives.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation filed a procedural application seeking rejection of Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action as manifestly inadmissible, arguing that Suinno's appointed representative was ineligible because he held extensive administrative and financial powers within the company. The Court considered a prior Court of Appeal order confirming that natural persons with extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal person cannot serve as its representative before the UPC. The Court held that the lack of valid representation does not lead to inadmissibility of the action, but rather requires granting the affected party an opportunity to remedy the representation deficit.
Syngenta Limited v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Sumi Agro to revoke provisional measures previously granted in favor of Syngenta Limited regarding European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centered on whether Syngenta had timely 'started proceedings on the merits' within the deadline set under Rule 213.1 RoP, given that the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024 but the court fee was received on 30 September 2024. The Local Division Munich upheld the judge-rapporteur's dismissal of Sumi Agro's application, finding that Syngenta had started proceedings in due time, and granted leave to appeal.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order regarding applications for reimbursement of court fees in three appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 4108782. Following the permitted withdrawal of the appeals against three contested orders of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Hamburg), 10x Genomics and Harvard College applied for partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal granted the applications, ordering 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of written proceedings and 20% reimbursement for two appeals withdrawn before completion of oral proceedings, finding that the requirements of Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure were met.
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.