European UPC Patent Cases

This order concerns an application by Rematec GmbH & Co KG, the appellant in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 548 648, seeking referral of its cost decision application from the Court of Appeal to the Court of First Instance (Mannheim Local Division). The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction over cost decision applications, which must be filed before the Court of First Instance pursuant to R. 150 et seq. RoP, and dismissed Rematec's application for referral.

patent LITIGATION

Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH

· UPC_CFI_360/2026

The defendants in a UPC infringement action requested alignment of the deadline for filing their Statements of Defence, which had diverged by 20 days due to delayed service on the U.S. defendant. The claimant objected, citing the approaching expiry of the patent-in-suit in March 2027. The Local Division Hamburg granted the request, aligning all defendants' deadlines to 11 June 2026, holding that the claimant bore the risk of the deviating service dates because it delayed arranging payment for service in the U.S.

patent LITIGATION

Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_CFI_1034/2025

Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 909 047, addressing the Defendants' application under R. 262A RoP to protect confidential information. The court granted the application, classifying the Defendants' estimated gross profit figures for 2026 sales of the attacked embodiments in Germany and France as confidential trade secrets, and restricting access on the Claimant's side to specific named representatives and employees.

patent LITIGATION

Illumina, Inc. v.Element Biosciences, Inc. and Others (EP3714978)

LISBON – LOCAL DIVISION · UPC_CFI_1920/2025

Illumina, Inc. brought a patent infringement action before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3714978 against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. The Defendants sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP, arguing the Statement of Claim manifestly lacked foundation because it omitted the 'fluidic device' feature of claim 1 from its feature breakdown, headings, and injunctive relief requests. The Court rejected the dismissal request, finding the omissions were clerical mistakes that did not render the action doomed to fail, and granted Illumina's request under Rule 9 RoP to file a corrected Statement of Claim.

patent LITIGATION

biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International

· UPC_CFI_714/2024

The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by the defendants to suspend proceedings pending parallel opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office concerning EP 3 685 783 B1 (an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies). The court rejected the suspension request, holding that suspension under Rule 295 RoP is generally not warranted when the UPC oral hearing precedes the EPO Opposition Division hearing, nor is it necessarily required merely because the Opposition Division revoked the patent between the UPC hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date. The court also admitted the plaintiff's late-filed auxiliary requests and appointed a court expert under Rule 185 RoP to resolve disputed technical questions regarding the accused embodiment.

patent LITIGATION

Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems

· UPC_CFI_642/2025

This order concerns the defendant's second application to postpone an oral hearing scheduled for 8 December 2026 in proceedings involving EP 3 251 983. The defendant, ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems, sought postponement citing the unavailability of its managing director due to an internal company event. The Local Division Munich dismissed the application, finding no substantial grounds justifying a postponement, and declined to grant leave to appeal.

1 •••58 59 60•••67

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →