European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 51 of 73 · 2,185 total
Cretes NV v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the streamlining of parallel infringement and revocation proceedings between CRETES NV (plaintiff/counterclaim defendant) and HYLER BV (defendant/counterclaim plaintiff) relating to European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152. The Court addresses a general procedural request filed by CRETES under Rule 9 RoP regarding the alignment of deadlines between the infringement action (UPC_CFI_216/2024) and the revocation counterclaim (UPC_CFI_556/2024). Both parties had previously agreed that the date of notification of the Statement of Defence (September 16, 2024) would serve as the determining date for deadlines in both proceedings.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of the court file under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in a preliminary evidence preservation proceeding relating to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The patent holder SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. raised no objection, noting that Chainzone had already been admitted as an intervenor in related proceedings before the Local Chamber Vienna. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering that file inspection be provided subject to redaction of personal data to be identified by SWARCO within ten days.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a revocation counterclaim related to European Patent No. 2 043 492 before the Local Chamber Munich. Dyson Technology Limited sought leave to withdraw its infringement action, while SharkNinja sought leave to withdraw its revocation counterclaim, with both parties confirming they had reached an out-of-court settlement and waiving their respective claims. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared both proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to each side.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
Aarke AB appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding it had infringed EP 1 793 917 and granting an injunction. Before the appeal was decided, Aarke applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP and sought reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision was necessary since Sodastream filed no comments or cost requests, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Aarke.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Network System Technologies LLC (NTS) for the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions against AUDI AG. The Court of Appeal had previously ordered NST to provide security for costs totaling EUR 500,000 across three proceedings. After NTS withdrew the infringement actions and the Munich Local Division closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full release and return of the deposited security amounts.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S Machinery B.V.
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_16/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/02/2025 APPLICANT Mammoet Holding B.V. (Applicant) - Karel Doormanweg 47 - 3115 JD - Schiedam - NL Represented by Ricardo Dijkstra RELEVA
Dyson Technology Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both parties informed the court that they had reached an out-of-court settlement and consented to the withdrawal of their respective claims, waiving all asserted claims. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals and ordered that each party receive a 60 percent refund of the court fees for their respective actions.
Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing the Claimant's request under Rule 9.3 ROP for an extension of time periods. The court denied the main request for a three-week extension but granted a one-week extension, taking into account the Chinese New Year holidays affecting Defendants 1, 2, and 4's parent company in China. The relevant time limits were extended until 3 March 2025 for all Defendants to maintain harmonisation.
POSCO v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by POSCO, a member of the public, seeking inspection of written pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against multiple XPENG group companies and their European distributors based on European Patent EP 3 290 200. POSCO, which has filed an opposition against the same patent at the European Patent Office, argued that access to the case file is necessary to analyze ArcelorMittal's claim interpretation in the UPC proceedings, which is directly relevant to the validity discussion in the parallel EPO opposition appeal. The XPENG defendants left the decision to the discretion of the Court.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order in evidence preservation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717, owned by SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. SWARCO alleged that Yunex GmbH had installed patent-infringing collective optics manufactured by Shenzhen Dianming Tech Co., Ltd in LED display panels deployed in the city of Mönchengladbach. The order addressed the procedural question of how to handle the mootness (Erledigung) of an evidence preservation application, holding that Rules 360 and 198.1 of the Rules of Procedure apply analogously, and reserving the cost decision to the main proceedings.
Nokia Technologies Oy ao v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd ao
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on February 19, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patents EP 2 243 229 and EP 3 799 333, following an oral hearing on February 18, 2025. The applicants, two Nokia group entities responsible for managing and licensing Nokia's patent portfolio, sought provisional measures against three Chinese respondents (Shanghai Sunmi Technology, Sunmi Technology (Yunnan), and Shangtian Technology (Shanghai)) ahead of the EuroCIS trade fair in Düsseldorf. The order establishes key legal principles regarding the imminence of patent infringement, particularly in the context of anti-suit injunctions, and addresses the conditions under which security for provisional measures may be exceptionally omitted.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems GmbH
Lionra Technologies Ltd., an Irish patent licensing company, sued Cisco Systems GmbH and its US parent Cisco Systems, Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 201 740 B1, which protects fast packet switching in wireless networks. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, which the plaintiff defended in auxiliary form with limitations. The case concerns Cisco's Catalyst 9000 series network switches and addresses the interpretation of patent claims regarding latency reduction in processing data packets and headers in wireless network transmissions.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.Respondent
AYLO Premium Ltd filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, with DISH Technologies L.L.C. as defendant. AYLO subsequently requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, seeking at least EUR 400,000 from DISH Technologies, citing alleged insolvency risks supported by SEC filings of DISH's parent companies. The Court invited further observations from both parties and held an interim conference before referring the matter to a full panel, which issued its order on 18 February 2025.
IMS Robotics GmbH, IMS Robotics Nordic A/S v.Respondent
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 2 129 956. The Claimant (Per Aarsleff A/S) filed a patent infringement action on 20 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 28 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties jointly sought to withdraw their respective claims and requested partial reimbursement of court fees, with no cost decision sought by either side.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 17/02/2025 suivant la conférence de mise en état (R. 105.5 RdP) DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par Pauline Debré 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-g
Footbridge Group AB , Brunngård Group AB v.Imbox Protection A/S
Imbox Protection A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 276 862, filed an application to preserve evidence and inspect property against Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB regarding their EXPRO HUB product. After the Defendants submitted detailed objections demonstrating non-infringement, the Applicant withdrew the application. The Court granted the Defendants' requests for confidentiality protection over Exhibits 17-19 and awarded each Defendant SEK 225,000 in legal costs and expenses, applying a joint ceiling of EUR 38,000 for representation costs.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This is a rectification order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent related to heart valve prostheses. Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (the defendants in the underlying infringement action) applied under Rule 353 RoP to rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, and obvious slips in the court's decision of 15 November 2024. The court granted several rectifications relating to factual inaccuracies on pages 13, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53, and 59 of the decision, while dismissing the remaining requests.
Insulet Corporation v.Respondent
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits, since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore,
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits, since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore,
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appealed a decision by the UPC Local Division The Hague that denied its request for a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. (collectively "Sibionics") for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose monitoring device. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order, finding that the patent claims did not contain added matter, and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sibionics from infringing the patent with its GS1 CGM product, along with information and delivery-up orders.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH
GXD-Bio Corporation sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 346 403 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants filed a preliminary objection arguing the court lacked competence to adjudicate claims for acts predating GXD-Bio's recordal as patent proprietor. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the defendants' arguments concerned standing and substantive ownership rather than jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and allowed an appeal.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
This is a scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. The order sets dates for the interim conference (6 October 2025) and the oral hearing (10 December 2025), and requests the assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondents
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned whether a European Patent Attorney who is also a party to proceedings must be represented by an independent representative under Rule 8.1 RoP. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they themselves are parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position (such as Chair of the Board) cannot represent a legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB 14 days to appoint authorised representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Ona Patents SL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 12 February 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1. The order addresses an application under Rule 262A RoP to protect confidential information, classifying certain information contained in the unredacted Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defense and related exhibits as confidential, and restricting access to designated representatives of the Claimant.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich ruled on a jurisdiction objection raised by the defendants in an infringement action concerning EP 3 685 783. The court held that the Munich chamber was competent to hear the infringement case, rejecting the defendants' argument under Article 33(2) EPGÜ that the Düsseldorf chamber should have jurisdiction. The court reasoned that at the time the infringement action was filed on November 20, 2024, no parallel action under Article 32(1)(a), (c), (f), (g) or (h) was pending before another first-instance chamber, since the prior interim measures application had already been appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Meril Italy srl v.Respondents
This appeal concerned an order of the Central Division Paris (14 October 2024) granting Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB access to pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings between Meril Italy and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Meril Italy challenged the validity of the access request, arguing that Respondent 1's self-representation was impermissible under Art. 48 UPCA and that he could not validly represent SWAT Medical AB as its Board Chair. The Court of Appeal held that representation is a matter of public policy that may be examined at any time, and that neither self-representation nor representation by a person holding a high-level management position is permitted before the UPC.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Hamburg Local Division that had denied Daedalus Prime LLC's two US attorneys access to confidential information disclosed by Xiaomi in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 792 100. The Court held that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require the person granted access to be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA, and that the US attorneys' technical expertise and familiarity with the patent justified granting them full access. The orders of the judge-rapporteur of 30 July 2024 and 3 September 2024 were amended to extend access to the two US attorneys.
Supponor Oy v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by AIM Sport Development AG (formerly AIM Sport Vision AG) against five defendants regarding European Patent No. EP3295663. The Helsinki Local Division had initially dismissed the action for lack of competence, but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision and referred the case back. The present procedural order addresses AIM Sport's applications under Rule 263 RoP to amend its claims and grounds, and under Rule 305 RoP to add a new defendant to the proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Court of First Instance's decision declaring inadmissible Suinno's R. 262A RoP application for confidentiality, on the ground that Suinno's representative, who was also its managing director and main shareholder, could not be considered independent under Art. 48(5) UPCA. The Court of Appeal held that no corporate representative or natural person holding extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal person may serve as that legal person's representative before the UPC, regardless of whether they are otherwise qualified as a UPC representative.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts, erlassen am 10.02.2025 KLÄGERIN BSN Medical GmbH, Schützenstraße 1-3, 22761 Hamburg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Christian Stoll Hogan Lovells International LLP, Alstertor 2, 20095 Hamburg, Deutschla
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.