European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 62 of 67 · 2,007 total
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. and Acer Entities
Procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and multiple Acer entities concerning European Patent EP3079153. The order follows a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026 and addresses issues relating to the patent's inclusion in the Vectis pool, a Rule 190 request by Acer, and Acer's potential counterclaim for rate setting against Vectis. The court directed the case to proceed according to the Rules of Procedure and ordered Dolby to file a submission.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. & Acer Entities (UPC-CFI-1536/2025)
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerns an infringement action by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and multiple Acer entities regarding European Patent EP 3 079 153 B1, which is part of the Vectis Opus Patent Pool. The court addressed four main issues: the intervention of Vectis IP Ltd., an order to produce comparable licence agreements, the establishment of a confidentiality regime, and an extension of deadlines. The court admitted Vectis as an intervener, declared the counterclaim for rate-setting against Vectis admissible, ordered production of licence agreements, and established a detailed confidentiality club regime.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. and Acer Entities (Procedural Order on Rectification)
Procedural order of the Local Division The Hague rectifying an obvious error in a prior order of 1 May 2026. The parties agreed that the Defendants' application under R. 190 erroneously referred to 'Acer' where 'Vectis' (the Intervener) was intended. The Court rectified the references on pages 3 and 7 of the prior order, changing 'Dolby and Acer' to 'Dolby and Vectis' under section A, first sentence.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. and Acer Entities (Vectis IP Ltd. as Intervener)
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order accepting a counterclaim for rate-setting against the intervener Vectis IP Ltd. in an infringement action involving EP3079153. The panel denied the review sought by Dolby and Vectis, holding that under R. 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party and a counterclaim may be directed against it, particularly given the equal treatment principle and Vectis's authority to grant licenses. The Court added Vectis as a party on the side of Dolby and granted leave to appeal.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH (UPC_CFI_1696/2025)
This case concerns a review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure of an order for inspection and preservation of evidence concerning European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 (Hydrogen Production by Steam Methane Reforming). The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected SYPOX GmbH's challenge to the appointed experts (Dipl.-Ing. Philipp Harlacher and Dipl.-Ing. Annkathrin Solf) for alleged bias, as well as SYPOX's requests to declare the experts' detailed report inadmissible and to delete all data collected during the inspection. The court clarified that the experts' invoices constitute inspection costs to be borne by Topsoe A/S and maintained the requirement of EUR 500,000 security before the reactor could be opened.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court revoked an inspection and evidence preservation order concerning EP 2 983 864 B1 because the applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, failed to initiate main proceedings within the statutory deadline of 31 calendar days or 20 working days following the disclosure of the expert's detailed description. The court ordered the return and destruction of all evidence obtained, including a seized brochure, and held OTEC liable for the costs of the proceedings.
Simmons & Simmons LLP (Application for Public Access under R. 262.1(b) RoP in proceedings between Genentech Inc. & F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. & NV Organon)
Simmons & Simmons LLP applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to written pleadings and evidence filed in two underlying UPC proceedings (UPC_CFI_407/2025 and UPC_CFI_408/2025) concerning EP 3 401 335 B1, involving Genentech/Roche as claimants and Organon as defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur partially granted the request, allowing access to redacted versions of certain key submissions (the original applications, review applications, and comments) while dismissing access to other documents, particularly those related to evidence preservation/inspection proceedings where no merits proceedings followed and those subject to pending destruction/return requests.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. and NV Organon
This is a procedural order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur of the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 401 335 B1. The order addresses a clerical mistake in the name of one of the representatives of Genentech & Roche in a R. 262.1.(b) RoP order issued earlier the same day. The Judge-Rapporteur directed that a new corrected order would be issued to replace the erroneous one.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
Gilead Sciences, Inc. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Milan seat) of the Unified Patent Court against the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) seeking invalidation of European Patent No. 3 854 403, which covers the use of Remdesivir for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. The claimant argued the patent lacked inventive step and sufficient disclosure, while the defendant sought to maintain the patent as granted or in amended form. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissed all amendment requests, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs set by agreement at €800,000, with the value of the case fixed at €20 million.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC v.Krahn Chemie Benelux BV (Review of Preservation of Evidence Order)
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC obtained an ex parte order for preservation of evidence and inspection of premises against Krahn Chemie Benelux BV and two Italian defendants, alleging indirect infringement of EP3286270 relating to an anti-skinning composition comprising at least 98 wt% of 2-pentanone oxime. Krahn filed a review of the ex parte order under R.197.3 RoP, seeking revocation of the order, return of seized evidence, and provision of security. The Court dismissed Krahn's requests to revoke the order but ordered that the Technical Report NL be released to AdvanSix only upon provision of a EUR 50,000 security deposit.
Miele & Cie. KG v.Melitta Europa GmbH & Co. KG
Miele sought interim measures against Melitta before the Local Chamber Munich, alleging that Melitta's manufacture and sale of 'SWIRL M60' vacuum cleaner filter bags infringed claims 7 to 11 of European Patent EP 4 676 295 B1. After the court indicated that the validity of the asserted claims appeared undermined by prior art (DE 3403121 A1), Miele withdrew its application. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered Miele to bear Melitta's costs, but granted Miele a 50% refund of court fees (EUR 7,300) because the withdrawal followed the court's suggestion and saved it substantial work.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited & Others
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3119235 owned by Dyson Technology Limited against six defendants associated with the Dreame group and related entities. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and pending accelerated opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO). The judge-rapporteur refused both requests for a stay at the present time, holding that a stay is an exception and that neither a rapid EPO decision nor a CJEU referral justified staying the entire case at this stage.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. (UPC_CFI_335/2025)
This case concerns an application for a cost decision filed by Hurom Co., Ltd. against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division's earlier decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action, the claimant withdrew its application for a cost decision. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the decision to be entered in the register.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
This order concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant. The court permitted the withdrawal and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
This case concerns an application for a cost decision filed by Hurom Co., Ltd. following the dismissal of its infringement action regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action, the claimant withdrew its application for a cost decision by brief of 10 April 2026. The Local Division Mannheim permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and held that no decision on the costs of the cost proceedings was necessary.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
This order concerns the withdrawal of a request for the imposition of penalty payments in enforcement proceedings before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its penalty payment requests. The court permitted the withdrawal and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially granted Brita SE's application for the determination of coercive fines against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for non-compliance with a December 9, 2025 order concerning EP 2 131 940 B1. The defendant was ordered to pay 1,000 EUR per day for each day of non-compliance with the information obligation since March 31, 2026, and was threatened with an additional 1,500 EUR per day for continued non-compliance after May 5, 2026.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in consolidated proceedings (CFI_196/2025 and CFI_665/2025) concerning European patent EP 2 403 266. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 30 April 2026, addressing case management matters including the value of proceedings, exhibit submissions, confidentiality, limitation of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and scheduling of the oral hearing for 23 July 2026.
Agathon AG v.Intercom S.r.l. and Knarr Vertriebs GmbH
Agathon AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 363 263 B1 relating to a centring device for a forming tool, brought an infringement action against Intercom S.r.l. and Knarr Vertriebs GmbH concerning centring devices marketed under specific article numbers. The defendants denied infringement and Intercom filed a counterclaim for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The case was heard by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, with a decision delivered on 5 May 2026.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal in provisional measures proceedings related to European patent EP 2 387 951. The appellants, Lepu Medical entities, withdrew their appeal against a cease-and-desist injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech GmbH, and the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the appellants to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed a patent infringement action against Asustek Computer Inc before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1, alleging that Asustek's laptops and notebooks incorporating Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX201 and Wi-Fi 6E AX211 modules infringed the patent. Asustek counterclaimed for revocation, arguing added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step, while Ericsson filed conditional auxiliary requests to amend the patent. The Court found Asustek liable for infringement from Q2 2019 (AX201) and Q3 2021 (AX211) until 15 February 2025, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation finding the patent valid in its amended form, and ordered Asustek to pay damages and provide accounting information subject to penalty payments.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH (UPC_CFI_1536/2026)
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, holder of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against ANCA Europe GmbH at the GrindingHub Stuttgart 2026 trade fair. OTEC suspected that ANCA's EPX-SF grinding machine infringed its patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering inspection and measurement of the EPX-SF machine at the trade fair stand, subject to detailed procedural safeguards including confidentiality protections.
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court (UPC_CFI_388/2025) concerning corrections to a prior decision dated May 6, 2026, in a patent infringement action involving EP 4 117 857 B1. The defendant filed eleven correction requests under R. 353 of the Rules of Procedure, and the court partially granted them, correcting clerical errors and obvious mistakes in the representatives' details, claim language, dates, and certain paragraphs while rejecting the remaining requests.
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
Horl 1993 GmbH, a family business specializing in knife sharpening devices, sued Magna-Tec e.K. before the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court for infringement of EP 4 117 857 B1, which protects a roller sharpener (Rollschleifer). The claimant alleged that the defendant's product 'Trinity-S' infringed claims 1 and 14 of the patent. The court largely upheld the claimant's requests, granting injunctive relief, recall, information, destruction, provisional damages of EUR 3,000, and publication of the judgment, while partially dismissing certain claims and allocating costs with the defendant bearing two-thirds.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH & MedEnvoy Global BV
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA sought provisional measures against Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH and MedEnvoy Global BV for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1 concerning a method for controlling an orthopedic joint. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, finding that Ottobock had not acted with sufficient urgency after learning of the allegedly infringing knee system, as it could have filed the application by mid/late October 2025 but waited until December 10, 2025. Ottobock was ordered to bear the costs and pay provisional cost reimbursement of €40,651.20 to the respondents.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA sought interim measures from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1 concerning a method for controlling an orthopedic joint. The court rejected the application, finding that Ottobock had not acted with sufficient urgency, as it should have known about the allegedly infringing 'Kneuro microprocessor' product earlier than it claimed. Ottobock was ordered to bear the costs and pay provisional cost reimbursement of €18,150.00.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV v.Barco NV (Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_2265/2025)
This is a cost decision (R. 150 RoP) of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Brussels, concerning EP 3 732 827 owned by Barco NV. Yealink sought a final cost award of €237,257.84 following preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings in which Barco's requests were dismissed for lack of urgency, though Yealink's competence challenges were also dismissed. The Court held Yealink to be a 'partly successful party,' applied the cost ceiling separately for first instance and appeal proceedings, deducted Barco's costs related to the dismissed competence challenge, excluded interpretation costs incurred under R. 109.4 RoP, and allowed recovery of travel and hotel costs.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. et al.
Procedural order of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) in proceedings concerning EP2590626 B1, addressing two applications by the parties. The Court dismissed GSK's application under Rule 176 to have five party experts heard in person, finding that GSK failed to specify which facts each expert would confirm. The Court also dismissed Moderna's third Rule 9.3 application for a one-week extension to file its rejoinder to the application to amend, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the extension.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda. & Silimed GmbH v.Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH & Others
The Claimants, who became the rightful owners of European Patent EP 2 581 193 B1 through entitlement proceedings, filed an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court. The Defendants raised preliminary objections arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction because the patent had been validly opted out. The Local Division Hamburg dismissed the action, holding that the withdrawal of the opt-out was ineffective due to pending national revocation proceedings before the German Federal Patent Court.
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a request for discretionary review filed by Adobe against an order of the Paris Local Division. The underlying dispute concerned Adobe's request under R. 334(h) RoP to dismiss claims in KEEEX SAS's infringement action relating to non-UPC member states. The Court of Appeal held the request had become moot because the same legal question had already been conclusively settled in related 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.