European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 6 of 67 · 2,007 total
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning an application for provisional measures based on European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The Defendants sought leave to appeal a prior procedural order of 16 December 2025, which had directed the Court to disregard non-infringement arguments submitted in the Defendants' Rejoinder. The Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the order was a valid exercise of its procedural discretion under Rules 9 and 209.1(a) RoP and was closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
VMR Products LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 456 214 relating to a vaporizer (electronic cigarette), appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division that revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, confirming that the patent's claims, including independent claim 1 and dependent claims, lack an inventive step over the prior art, particularly the Pan reference. VMR Products was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH and Others
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese claimant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division, requested simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing. The Defendants did not object to Canon engaging an interpreter at its own expense but opposed court-organised interpretation and associated costs. The court applied a two-stage test and held that while allowing simultaneous interpretation was appropriate, the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, as Japanese is neither an official language of a Contracting Member State nor of the Local Division.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Amazon sought suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP for its appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that prohibited Amazon from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court that would impede InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The Court of Appeal, presided by Judge Klaus Grabinski, dismissed Amazon's request, finding that Amazon had not demonstrated the impugned order was manifestly erroneous or that irreversible harm was imminent.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno applied for leave to appeal a cost decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, which had ordered Suinno to pay EUR 350,000 in costs to Microsoft following Microsoft's successful infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. Suinno sought to reduce the awarded costs to EUR 137,815.80. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, holding that the awarded costs were proportionate and within the applicable ceiling, and that the judge-rapporteur had conducted a thorough and detailed assessment.
Sumi Agro Limited & Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of an application for rehearing filed by Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited against Syngenta Limited concerning patent EP 2 152 073. Both parties jointly requested withdrawal following settlement discussions, and the court ordered a 60% reimbursement of the 2,500 € court fee (1,500 €) to Sumi while dismissing the remainder of their requests, including the request for a full waiver of fees.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 905 730. The Defendants (Samsung entities) filed requests to produce their own licence agreement with a third party and to file further written submissions regarding new developments in licence negotiations and their own third-party licence agreements. The court dismissed these requests as belated, holding that the front-loaded procedure required the Defendants to make such submissions and production requests at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 against multiple defendants. On 16 December 2025, the claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, with each party bearing its own costs and seeking reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 11,400) to the claimant.
Valéo Systèmes d'Essuyages v.Robert Bosch GmbH and Others
This is a procedural order from the Central Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary objection on jurisdiction and language of proceedings. The court held that the Central Division of Paris lacked jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement action filed by Valeo against multiple Robert Bosch entities, and ordered the case transferred to the Local Division of Düsseldorf with English as the language of proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 471 419 was filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. against six defendants before the Mannheim Local Division. The claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, with most defendants consenting and one defendant (ASD SAS) not participating. The court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning the withdrawal of an appeal and reimbursement of court fees. Both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw the appeal before the Statement of Response was lodged, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to the appellant, Lindal Dispenser GmbH.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 645 714 was brought by NEC Corporation against eight defendants before the Mannheim Local Division. On 16 December 2025, the claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, and most defendants consented. The court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, set the value in dispute at EUR 1,500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
Sun Patent Trust v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
This was an infringement action before the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 903 267. The plaintiff, Sun Patent Trust, filed a request on December 16, 2025 to withdraw the action against all eight defendants and to have 60% of the court fees refunded. Most defendants consented to the withdrawal and the proposed cost arrangement, while one defendant did not appear. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a partial refund of court fees.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA and Others
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 3186937, involving a patent infringement action by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against Vantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, and Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Vantiva entities. Before the written proceedings were concluded, both the main action and the counterclaim were withdrawn by the respective parties with the consent of the opposing sides. The court allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, dispensed with a cost decision per the parties' agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to each side.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP (Applicant) in Insulet Corporation v.EOFLow Co., Ltd.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP applied to the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court for access to written pleadings and evidence in the concluded proceedings Insulet Corporation v. EOFLow Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_768/2024) concerning EP 4 201 327. Both Insulet and EOFLow opposed the request, arguing lack of standing, purely commercial interest, confidentiality protections, GDPR data protection, and copyright concerns. The Court of Appeal granted access to Insulet's Statement of Appeal and a redacted version of EOFLow's Statement of Response, finding that a law firm qualifies as a member of the public and that the applicant's interest in understanding the court's decision was a legitimate general interest.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al. v.Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court confirmed an ex-parte order that prohibited Amazon entities from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court aimed at blocking InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The court rejected Amazon's application to review the order, finding that InterDigital's RAND declaration to the ITU-T did not give Amazon a contractual right to an interim license enforceable in the UK, and that the UPC's jurisdiction over European patents in its territory had to be respected.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against three Vantiva entities regarding European Patent EP 3 353 901, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Vantiva entities against Atlas Global Technologies GmbH and Atlas Global Technologies LLC. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, both the main action and the counterclaim were withdrawn by the respective parties with the consent of the opposing parties. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, dispensed with a cost decision per the parties' agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to both sides.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France
Viatris Santé appealed a procedural order from the Paris Local Division that had disregarded certain late-filed exhibits from its rejoinder in provisional measures proceedings brought by Merz. However, the Paris Local Division subsequently issued a final order rejecting Merz's application for provisional measures entirely, rendering Viatris's procedural appeal devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal disposed of the appeal under R. 360 RoP, noting that Viatris could still seek admission of the exhibits in Merz's separate appeal against the final order.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others
GXD-Bio Corporation, the registered owner of European Patent EP 3 346 403 concerning a method for quantifying gene expression in FFPE breast cancer tissue samples using OAZ1 as an endogenous reference gene, sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for patent infringement relating to the EndoPredict test. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and GXD-Bio sought to amend the patent via three auxiliary claim requests. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent, dismissed the amendment application, and dismissed the infringement action, finding that the EndoPredict test did not infringe because it uses three reference genes (CALM2, OAZ1, and RPL37A) for normalization rather than OAZ1 alone as required by claim 1.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 593 025 B1, which was executed at the Defendant's booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf. After the expert delivered its detailed description, the Defendant had not logged into the CMS despite having received an access code, preventing it from commenting on confidentiality interests. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the unredacted detailed description to the Applicant, lifting the confidentiality order, as the Defendant bore the responsibility to appoint a UPC representative to access the CMS.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ordered Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd to provide security for costs of EUR 75,000 in each of two appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_622/2025 and UPC_CoA_623/2025) brought against Grundfos Holding A/S. The court held that under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ, only the respondent to an appeal (Berufungsbeklagter) is entitled to request security for costs, and that the risk of enforcement difficulties in China justified the order.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sued Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for direct and indirect infringement of the German and French parts of European Patent No. EP 3 652 914 B1, relating to methods and systems for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows. Palo Alto Networks counterclaimed for revocation, challenging sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The Mannheim Local Division found the counterclaim for revocation well-founded, revoked the patent entirely in France and Germany, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action, ordering Centripetal to bear the costs.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
The provided text contains only digital signatures of three individuals dated December 19, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, facts, legal arguments, reasoning, or decision available for analysis.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for preservation of evidence and inspection under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 RoP regarding European patent EP 2 593 025 B1. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the Applicant because the Defendant, despite receiving a CMS access code at the time of service on 18 November 2025, never logged into the CMS through a UPC representative, thereby forfeiting its opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division concerns HMD Global Oy's request under Rule 190 RoP for Fraunhofer to disclose various MPEG-4/AAC patent license agreements to support its FRAND defence and exhaustion arguments. The court partially granted the request, ordering Fraunhofer to produce its currently in-force bilateral AAC Patent License Agreement with a third party under strict confidentiality protections, but declined to order production of five expired license agreements and another terminated agreement as not currently justified.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH a.o.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Munich) revoked European Patent EP 3 346 403, which claimed a method for quantifying gene expression in FFPE breast cancer tissue samples using OAZ1 as an endogenous reference gene. The court dismissed the infringement action brought by GXD-Bio Corporation against the Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific concerning the EndoPredict test, finding that the attacked embodiment did not infringe because it normalized expression using three reference genes (CALM2, OAZ1, and RPL37A) rather than OAZ1 alone as required by claim 1.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB, Romania Xiaomi Communication Technology S.R.L.
The provided text contains only digital signatures of three individuals dated December 19, 2025, with no substantive judgment content. No facts, arguments, reasoning, or outcome can be extracted from the available text.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division concerning a defendant's request under R. 190 RoP for the disclosure of licensing agreements related to the Claimant's MPEG-4/AAC standard-essential patent portfolio. The Defendant sought production of five expired bilateral license agreements and two current license agreements to support its FRAND defence and exhaustion arguments. The court partially granted the request, ordering the Claimant to produce the current AAC Patent License Agreement with [..] under strict confidentiality protections, while declining to order production of the expired agreements at the current stage of proceedings.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked an ex-parte inspection and evidence preservation order that had been issued in favor of Ecovacs Robotics against Roborock (HK) Limited concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The court found that Ecovacs had breached Rule 192.3 RoP by providing incomplete and misleading submissions, as it had failed to present any technical facts showing that the accused robot vacuum cleaners practiced the patent claims. The order was set aside with ex-tunc effect, except for the confidentiality provisions, and Ecovacs was ordered to bear the costs of the inspection.
Docket Navigator v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited and Syngenta Limited
Docket Navigator, a US-based patent litigation intelligence platform, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded UPC Court of Appeal proceedings between Syngenta and Sumi Agro, intending to make these documents available to its subscribers. Both Sumi Agro and Syngenta objected, citing copyright concerns, pending rehearing proceedings, and the commercial nature of Docket Navigator's platform. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that copyright is not a general interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA and that granting access to a company intending to redistribute documents to subscribers would compromise the proper conduct of proceedings.
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.