European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 73 · 2,185 total
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
BARCO sought leave to amend its patent EP 3 732 827 by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) to align UPC infringement and revocation proceedings with parallel EPO opposition proceedings. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the application, holding that BARCO could have foreseen the need for amendment from the outset and failed to align its procedural strategies in a timely manner. The Court granted leave to appeal.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing two procedural issues arising from NST's appeals against decisions of the Munich Local Division in three related infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669, and EP 1 875 683. The Court held that NST's appeals against the dismissal of its R. 190 RoP evidence production applications were inadmissible because they were filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period, and that NST's newly filed R. 190 applications before the Court of Appeal were also inadmissible as they sought substantially the same evidence already rejected at first instance without any new facts justifying refiling.
Knaus Tabbert v.Yellow Sphere and Härtwich (UPC-CoA-365/2025, UPC-CoA-367/2025)
This is an appeal decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109. Knaus Tabbert appealed against the Local Division's decision, but the Court of Appeal rejected all of Knaus Tabbert's appeals and ordered Knaus Tabbert to bear the court fees and costs of the proceedings. The dispute value was set at EUR 500,000 for each of the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ruled on procedural issues arising from Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) attempts to obtain evidence production orders under Rule 190 RoP against Qualcomm in infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. The court held that NST's appeals against the first-instance dismissal of its Rule 190 applications were inadmissible because they were filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period, and that NST's newly filed Rule 190 applications before the Court of Appeal were inadmissible as they sought substantially the same evidence already dismissed at first instance without any new facts justifying refiling.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd., Roborock Germany GmbH, Roborock International B.V.
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed PAPST LICENSING's infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 030 943 (a method for operating a floor cleaning device) against three Roborock entities, finding no infringement of claims 1 and 10. The defendants had filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation, making it dependent on the court finding patent infringement. Since no infringement was established, no decision was rendered on the revocation counterclaim. Costs were split 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendants, with the defendants bearing the costs of the revocation counterclaim.
Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd and Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v.Occlutech GmbH
This Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerned an appeal against an order on forfeiture of penalties for non-compliance with a provisional injunction. Occlutech had obtained a PI against Lepu for alleged infringement of EP 2 387 951 through its MemoCarna ASD and VSD occlusion devices. The Local Division Hamburg had ordered Lepu to pay EUR 58,800 in forfeited penalties for continuing to offer the attacked embodiments via its own website and the MedicalExpo platform despite the injunction. The Court of Appeal rejected Lepu's appeal, finding that its compliance measures, including geo-blocking and disclaimers, were insufficient to ensure compliance with the PI order.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
ORDER
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited et al.
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) concerns a Rule 9 application by the GC Aesthetics Defendants objecting to further written pleadings on infringement in Establishment Labs S.A.'s (LABS) Rejoinder, and an alternative Rule 36 application by LABS seeking further pleadings. The court ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections of LABS's Rejoinder (other than paragraphs 611-616) are inadmissible, but allowed the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings. LABS was ordered to file a revised Rejoinder, and the Defendants were granted an extended deadline of 7 September 2026 to include further written pleadings in their Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence of the Application to Amend the Patent.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Brussels concerns EP 3 107 487 B1, owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The Defendants (the GC Aesthetics group) filed a Rule 9 RoP application seeking to exclude certain sections of LABS's Rejoinder, while LABS filed a Rule 36 RoP application requesting further written pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections (except paragraphs 611-616) were inadmissible, but allowed the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings, ordering LABS to file a revised Rejoinder and granting the Defendants an extended deadline for further submissions.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG. v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3685783, in which both parties jointly requested that certain information be classified as confidential under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262.2 VerfO. The court granted the request, finding a legitimate interest in protecting information regarding attorney time expenditure and hourly rates from public access. The order classified specific greyed-out passages in the respondents' cost determination application and the applicant's response as confidential.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This case before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division The Hague concerned a reimbursement request filed by the Claimant after the withdrawal of an infringement action. The court declared the request for reimbursement of 60% of court fees inadmissible, holding that such applications cannot be filed in closed proceedings without first requesting reopening, that the Claimant had forfeited its right by informing the court no cost decision was needed, and that filing almost two months after closure was unreasonable. Leave to appeal was granted.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG. v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court suspended the cost assessment proceedings (UPC_CFI_256/2025) arising from a previously rejected ex parte application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 3685783. The court set the dispute value for the interim measures proceedings at EUR 1,000,000.00 and ordered the suspension of the cost assessment until the final decision in the main infringement and revocation proceedings pending before the Local Chamber Munich.
Sibio Technology Limited, Kowloon, Hong Kong v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Alameda, United States of America
DECISION
Google LLC, Google Germany GmbH v.BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG
This is a procedural order by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance regarding an application under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. Google LLC and Google Germany GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement action) requested the change, while BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG (Claimants) opposed it. The President granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, the language in which the patents were granted, without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) and others v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of an appeal under Rule 265 RoP. The appellants (Ericsson entities) had appealed a decision of the Lisbon Local Division that dismissed their application under Rules 360 and 361 RoP to strike out the respondent's (Shenzhen Transsion's) requests for injunctive relief in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 123 910. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, finding the requirements of Rule 265.1 RoP satisfied, and declared the proceedings closed.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a damages determination proceeding. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation seeks damages and an order to lay open books against three Meril entities, which were previously found to have infringed European Patent No. 3 669 828 with respect to the Myval Transcatheter Heart Valve and related system. The order confirms the date for an oral hearing on 10 September 2026, sets deadlines for further submissions, and establishes the value of the dispute at 15 million EUR.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This decision by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of proceedings and reimbursement of court fees in a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation concerning EP 3 849 157. All parties mutually agreed to withdraw the infringement action and two counterclaims for revocation before the closure of the written procedure, and no cost decision was requested. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and the respective counterclaimants.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd., proprietor of European patent EP 2 061 230 relating to a portable terminal and content display system, sued Samsung Electronics entities for alleged infringement of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 with Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation, arguing lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The UPC Court of First Instance (Local Division The Hague) found the patent invalid, holding that the claimed subject matter was obvious over prior art D1 in view of D3, and revoked the patent in its entirety while dismissing all infringement claims.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. and others
This Unified Patent Court order concerns infringement and validity proceedings involving two divisional patents (EP4066856 and EP4226941) owned by GSK against multiple Moderna entities. Following the revocation of EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal and the revocation of EP941 by the EPO Opposition Division, the Court disposed of the counterclaim action regarding EP856 as devoid of purpose. The Court postponed its decision on whether to stay the remaining proceedings regarding EP941, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and invited the parties to file written submissions on the impact of the EPO decisions.
Cybex GmbH v.NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH
Cybex GmbH sought preliminary measures against NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 B1, which relates to a child seat system comprising a seat element and a base mountable on a vehicle seat. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted the preliminary injunction in substantial part, ordering the respondents to cease offering and supplying the accused child seat products and base system across multiple UPC member states, and to provide information on distribution channels. The court held that relying on a narrower claim set (combination of Claims 1 and 2) as the main request does not preclude preliminary measures, but refused to admit auxiliary requests submitted for the first time in the reply brief.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This case before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation regarding EP 3 849 157. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested proportional reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 50% reimbursement of the court fees paid by the Claimant and the two Defendants who filed counterclaims for revocation.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd., proprietor of European patent EP 2 061 230 relating to a portable terminal and content display system, sued Samsung Electronics entities for alleged infringement of device claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 through Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Samsung counterclaimed for full revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and added matter. The Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the claimed subject matter, including all auxiliary requests, was obvious over the prior art, and dismissed Maxell's infringement action.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This is a procedural decision of the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and two counterclaims for revocation, along with the proportional reimbursement of court fees. The claimant Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology had filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 849 157 against multiple ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH, and the defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw the proceedings without requesting a cost decision, and sought reimbursement of 50% of the court fees paid.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium N.V. and Others
This procedural order concerns infringement and validity proceedings involving two GSK divisional patents, EP856 and EP941, against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT'). Following the revocation of EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO and the revocation of EP941 by the EPO opposition division, PBNT applied for a stay of the UPC proceedings. The court disposed of the counterclaim action concerning EP856 as devoid of purpose, postponed its decision on the stay request pending the written grounds of the TBA decision, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Hyundai Motor Deutschland GmbH & Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court ordered a stay of patent infringement proceedings and the related counterclaim for revocation pending a final decision by the European Patent Office in parallel appeal proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 651 429. The patent, relating to a vehicle communication network, had been revoked by the EPO Opposition Division on 9 July 2026, and the Claimant had filed an appeal on 4 August 2026. The court weighed the Claimant's right to a timely hearing against the need to avoid conflicts between UPC infringement measures and the EPO's revocation decision.
Niche Biomedical, Inc. (doing business as ANEUVO) v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
This is a cost decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the reimbursement of costs following injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_693/2025) involving EP 3 421 081 B1. The applicant, Niche Biomedical, sought reimbursement of EUR 168,200.00, arguing the cost ceiling should be raised by 50% due to the case's complexity. The court held that the applicant had not made an explicit and clear request to raise the recoverable costs ceiling under Article 2(4) of the Administrative Committee Decision of 24 April 2023, and that a mere request for interim cost reimbursement in a specified amount does not constitute such a request. The court set the recoverable costs at EUR 112,000.00, corresponding to the applicable ceiling for a dispute value of EUR 1,000,000.00.
Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Dolby and Vectis's applications for a stay and suspensive effect of first-instance proceedings pending their appeal. The appeal concerned an order by the Local Division The Hague that admitted Vectis's intervention in Dolby's infringement action against Acer and declared Acer's FRAND rate-setting counterclaim against Vectis admissible. The Court of Appeal found no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay, concluded the impugned order was not manifestly erroneous, and held that Dolby's appeal was inadmissible because the lower court had not ruled on the admissibility of the identical counterclaim against Dolby.
Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP. Dolby had brought an infringement action against Acer entities concerning European patent EP 3 079 153, and Vectis (administrator of the patent pool containing the patent) intervened. Acer filed counterclaims for revocation and FRAND rate-setting against both Dolby and Vectis. The Court of Appeal rejected all requests for a stay of the first-instance proceedings, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting suspensive effect, and additionally declared Dolby's appeal inadmissible because the impugned order did not adversely affect Dolby.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 726 883. QIAGEN Sciences had filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, and the defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation were withdrawn by mutual consent. The court allowed the withdrawals, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both the claimant and the defendants.
Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by Dolby and Vectis for suspensive effect (stay) of first instance proceedings pending their appeal. The underlying dispute concerned an order of the Local Division The Hague that admitted Vectis's intervention in support of Dolby and declared Acer's counterclaim for FRAND rate-setting against Vectis admissible. The Court of Appeal found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay and additionally held Dolby's appeal inadmissible because the impugned order contained no ruling adversely affecting Dolby.
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.