European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 6 of 73 · 2,185 total
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC,, its Treasurer and CFO Roland Sackers, its Senior Vice Presid v.bioMérieux S.A.,, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH,
This case concerned European patent EP 2 726 883 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH on 28 February 2025, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on 10 June 2025. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both sides.
Academy of Military Medical Sciences v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
This Unified Patent Court Court of Appeal order concerns an application by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) for leave to appeal against a cost decision and for suspensive effect. AMMS's patent EP 3 854 403 had been revoked by the Central Division Milan, which ordered AMMS to pay Gilead Sciences €800,000 in recoverable costs. AMMS argued that the automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA should extend to the cost decision. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding the scope of Art. 74(2) UPCA was an unresolved question, but rejected the application for suspensive effect for lack of demonstrated exceptional circumstances.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. Following an inspection and evidence preservation order executed at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm it. The court confirmed the settlement under Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered confidentiality of the settlement details, and directed that only a redacted version be entered in the register.
Paris v.Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-08-04) under reference UPC_A654C1AFDB, Paris appeared in dispute with Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsfü v.Respondent
This case concerned a request for confirmation of a settlement between the parties in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The proceedings originated from an inspection and evidence preservation order obtained by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH against ANCA Europe GmbH at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026. After the expert's detailed description was disclosed and ANCA Europe raised no objections, the parties notified the court on August 3, 2026 that they had settled the dispute and requested the court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365(1)(2) RoP.
Julius Blum GmbH v.Arturo Salice S.p.A.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 392 438, which relates to a furniture hinge. The plaintiff Julius Blum GmbH alleges infringement of claims 1-5 and 16 in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia, while the defendant Arturo Salice S.p.A. has filed a counterclaim for revocation of those same claims. The order addresses procedural matters following an interim hearing, including the value of the dispute, cost settlement, further written submissions, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 1, 2026.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This case before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned cross-appeals regarding European Patent EP 2 642 632. The Local Division Hamburg had dismissed the infringement action and partially revoked the patent. Both parties filed appeals but subsequently withdrew them after reaching an out-of-court settlement, and the Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and declared the proceedings terminated.
Kodak Holding GmbH & Others v.Fujifilm Corporation
This case concerns enforcement proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, where Kodak appealed penalty orders imposed by the Mannheim Local Division for alleged non-compliance with an injunction in patent infringement proceedings brought by Fujifilm. Following the Court of Appeal's earlier decision on the merits setting aside the Mannheim Local Division's decision and finding that Kodak did not infringe the patent due to a private prior use right, the Court of Appeal held that the revocation of the underlying decision had retroactive effect, removing the legal basis for the penalty orders. The Court set aside the impugned orders, set the value of the enforcement proceedings at one million Euro, ordered Fujifilm to bear Kodak's legal costs, and ordered the refund of penalty payments already made.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of cross-appeals in a patent dispute involving EP 2 642 632. The Local Chamber Hamburg had previously dismissed the infringement claim and partially revoked the patent. Both parties filed appeals but subsequently withdrew them after reaching an out-of-court settlement, and the Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings.
Bostik, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, and Others
Bostik, Inc. filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple Henkel entities, alleging that Henkel's Loctite® Liofol cold-sealable adhesive products infringed European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1 relating to cohesive coatings for snack food packaging. Henkel filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court declared the patent invalid in its entirety (including the amended form under auxiliary request AR1) on the ground of added matter, finding that Claim 1 as granted constituted an intermediate generalization beyond the original application disclosure.
Biopsafe ApS v.Kaltek S.r.l.
This case concerns an application for security for costs filed by the defendant Kaltek S.r.l. in patent infringement proceedings brought by Biopsafe ApS before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Kaltek argued that Biopsafe's financial position, characterized by low share capital, microenterprise status, aggressive dividend distribution, and near-zero liquidity, raised a legitimate concern that any costs award would be unrecoverable. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Kaltek had not met its burden of proof, particularly given Biopsafe's recent acquisition by Medcap for approximately EUR 15.38 million and its demonstrated growth in profits and assets.
Qord IP Protection LLC v.SmartThings, Inc. & Samsung Electronics
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2047617. Following an agreement between the parties, the judge-rapporteur confirmed the alignment of deadlines for all defendants to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation by 26 October 2026. The order also confirmed that Dr. Ebersohl would represent Defendant 1 (SmartThings, Inc.) in addition to the Samsung defendants.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharma France, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC
The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by Viatris Santé seeking a stay of proceedings and a declination of jurisdiction in favour of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris. The court held that Article 29 of the Brussels I recast Regulation (lis pendens) did not apply because the UPC infringement action and the Paris TJ revocation/non-infringement action did not share the same cause of action. While the cases were 'related' under Article 30, the court declined to stay proceedings because the UPC decision would likely be rendered before the Paris TJ decision, and a stay would unduly delay the UPC proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is an order issued by the Judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524. The order sets procedural directions, including the value of the dispute at 10 million euros (5 million for the infringement action and 5 million for the counterclaim for revocation), scheduling oral hearings on 9-11 September 2026, and identifying the main legal points relating to claim construction, validity, infringement, FRAND matters, and interim measures.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is an order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3852468. The order sets the value of the infringement action at 5 million euros and the counterclaim for revocation at 5 million euros, totaling 10 million euros. It also establishes the procedural framework for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 9-11 September 2026, covering claim construction, validity, infringement, FRAND matters, and an interim award.
CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG & Telekom Deutschland GmbH
This decision of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a review application filed by CA, Inc. against a confidentiality order issued by the judge-rapporteur on 22 June 2026 in proceedings involving EP 1 955 151. CA challenged the order on the ground that Telekom had only submitted an excerpt (Annex B5) of a larger document in unredacted form, arguing that Rule 262A.3 RoP required disclosure of the entire underlying document. The court rejected the review application, holding that an excerpt can constitute an 'unprocessed document' under Rule 262A.3 RoP and that there is no right to access the entire source document.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. & Others (OPPO Group)
This order from the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerns a dispute over the expansion of a confidentiality club in an infringement action involving EP2337403 and EP3944587. Oppo (the defendants collectively) sought to add two former in-house employees to the confidentiality club to access license materials, while KPN objected and requested a licensing bar. The Judge-Rapporteur declined to expand the club beyond the existing members, finding no substantiated reason to diverge from the parallel Düsseldorf confidentiality regime, and deferred the licensing bar question pending clarification from KPN.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the alignment of service dates and deadlines for filing statements of defence in a patent infringement action brought by Cardo Systems against two defendants, Ziwu and Resosport. The judge-rapporteur had ordered a notional common starting date of 10 June 2026 for all defendants, with statements of defence due by 10 September 2026. Cardo sought review of this order, arguing it granted the defendants a de facto 50-day extension inconsistent with the UPC's objectives of speed and efficiency. The Panel dismissed Cardo's application, finding the order constituted a balanced compromise that provided certainty and orderly management of the proceedings.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI OpCo LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, Truepic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris concerning a request for revision under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure. KEEEX SAS, holder of European patent EP2949070, sought partial revision of a June 25, 2026 order that had rejected its request for further patent modification under R.30.2, declared the addition of new Truepic products as an inadmissible change of claim under R.263, and excluded certain sections of its June 5, 2026 brief as late-filed under R.9.2. The panel rejected both KEEEX's and ADOBE's revision requests, finding that the original order correctly applied UPC jurisprudence on subsequent patent modifications and procedural admissibility.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc
The Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Lisbon confirmed a cost settlement between Ericsson and Asustek under Rule 365.1 RoP in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 819 131. Following a merits decision upholding Ericsson's infringement claim and dismissing Asustek's counterclaim for revocation, Ericsson requested confirmation of the parties' jointly submitted cost agreement requiring Asustek to pay EUR 150,000. The Court rejected Asustek's arguments that the agreement merely fixed a cost ceiling requiring a separate R. 150 procedure, holding that the substance of the agreement constituted a settlement resolving a potential cost dispute.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in cases UPC CFI no. 377/2025 and no. 702/2025, concerning the rectification of a clerical mistake under R. 353 RoP. The judge-rapporteur informed the parties of the Court's intention to correct an error in a prior order issued on 22 July 2026, where the value of the counterclaim for revocation was incorrectly stated as EUR 1,850,000 instead of the correct EUR 1,875,000. Both parties confirmed they had no objection to the proposed rectification, and the order was issued accordingly.
Bystronic Laser AG and Others v.ASTES4 SA
This is a procedural order by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance concerning an application to change the language of proceedings from Italian to English in a patent infringement action. The defendants (Bystronic group entities and Isochronic AG) sought the change to English, the language in which the patent EP2164678 was granted, while the claimant ASTES4 SA opposed it. The President granted the application, holding that all parties are part of international groups equally capable of litigating in English and that the defendants' position prevails when the balancing of interests is equal.
CJ CheilJedang Corporation v.Eppen Netherlands B.V. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3508580, owned by CJ CheilJedang Corporation. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence and a stay of proceedings, pending the claimant's own testing of previously seized samples. The Judge-Rapporteur granted a six-week extension of the SoD deadline running from the date the claimant submits its test results, and requested parties' availabilities in August for a potential case management hearing on access to seized technical documentation.
Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for inspection and evidence preservation (Art. 60 UPCA, Rules 192, 199 RoP) filed by Reinhausen GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 284 B1 relating to an on-load tap-changer, against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. The applicant sought to inspect a tap-changer exhibited by the respondent at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. Following an ex parte order on May 20, 2026, the Local Chamber Munich modified the order on July 27, 2026 to refine confidentiality provisions, access to the expert's report, and restrictions on communication with the appointed expert.
SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court concerning a revocation action for European patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The dispute centered on whether SYPOX GmbH qualifies as a small or micro enterprise (SME), with the parties disagreeing over the relevance of an Investment Agreement. SYPOX withdrew the unredacted version of the Investment Agreement and relied only on the redacted version, and the court dismissed Topsoe's requests for access to the unredacted document.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH & Others (Akteneinsicht)
A member of the public (a patent attorney) sought access to the case files of a concluded UPC infringement action between Dolby International AB and three Optoma entities concerning EP 3 605 534. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber partially granted the request, allowing access to the complaint and most exhibits while excluding confidential out-of-court correspondence and requiring redaction of personal data and a confidentiality undertaking.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 079 153. The Claimant, Dolby International AB, informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement agreement signed on 17 July 2026, and both parties jointly requested a stay of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The Court granted the stay with immediate effect pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP, and indicated its intention to cancel the oral hearing scheduled for 8 April 2027.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 (relating to a selector for an on-load tap-changer), for an inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court had previously issued an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026. In this decision dated July 27, 2026, the court modified the original order regarding confidentiality provisions, access to the expert's report, and restrictions on communication between the applicant and the appointed expert.
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.