European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 63 of 67 · 2,007 total
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a discretionary review request filed by Adobe under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The request sought to challenge a Paris Local Division order that had refused to dismiss claims relating to alleged infringement of national parts of EP 2 949 070 in non-contracting states. The Court held the request had become moot because the Court of Appeal had already resolved the underlying jurisdictional question in a prior order of March 13, 2026.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd & Others
This is a preliminary order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning three consolidated infringement actions brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against multiple defendants, including several Transsion group companies and other distributors. The order follows a case management hearing held on 5 March 2026 and addresses procedural matters, including parallel proceedings, the status of unrepresented defendants, and the ongoing confidentiality regime dispute. The court directed the case to proceed according to the Rules of Procedure and invited the parties to agree on a confidentiality regime, with a deadline of 10 April 2026 for the Transsion defendants to respond to the confidentiality request in the absence of agreement.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. (Claimant) brought a patent infringement action against four Micron entities (Defendants) concerning EP 3 909 047 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant sought a confidentiality order under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262A RoP to protect a TechInsights report it wished to submit as evidence, which was subject to US export control restrictions preventing disclosure to the Claimant itself. The Defendants opposed, arguing the report was publicly available and the Claimant had not met its burden of proof. The Court granted the confidentiality order, finding the conditions of R. 262A RoP were satisfied and that the parties could waive the requirement for a natural person from the Claimant to be included in the confidentiality club.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd & Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. brought a patent infringement action against the Xingi Group concerning European Patent No. 2 791 402 relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) Multifilament Yarn. Avient filed a Rule 190 application seeking the production of physical samples of the defendants' UD Fabric/ballistic sheets and internal test data to prove infringement of claims 13-15. The Court of First Instance partially granted the application, ordering production of at least 30 kg each of specific UD Fabric samples and English versions of an Introduction Video, while dismissing the remaining requests.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU & Others
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures, including a preliminary injunction, against four entities in the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 295 806 B1, which relates to methods of designing orthodontic appliances (clear aligners). The Local Division Düsseldorf dismissed the application, finding that Align Technology failed to sufficiently establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the relevant features of claim 1 (and corresponding claim 14) were realized in a single aligner of the defendants' challenged 'A7 Premolar Extraction Solution.' The Applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, with the value of the case set at EUR 1,600,000.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited et al.
This decision concerns three consolidated cost decision proceedings (UPC_CFI_775/2025, UPC_CFI_776/2025, and UPC_CFI_777/2025) before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court, relating to European Patent EP 3 769 722 B1. Following a settlement between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the Meril group of companies, the parties withdrew their applications for cost decisions but maintained their requests for confidentiality protection. The Court permitted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, and granted the agreed-upon confidentiality orders designating specific sections and exhibits as Confidential Information under Article 58 UPCA.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and MediaTek
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Huawei's request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP of a decision by the Local Division Munich concerning Quinn Emanuel's request for access to case file documents under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The court found that the question of whether a Rapporteur's decision granting file access is subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP raises fundamental legal questions warranting appeal. The appeal was admitted and the case was referred to a panel, with parties given the opportunity to submit further observations.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (UPC_CoA_53/2026)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Huawei's application for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP of a decision by the Local Division Munich concerning Quinn Emanuel's request for access to case files under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The court found that fundamental legal questions regarding the reviewability of the Rapporteur's decision under R. 333 RoP and the applicable appeal provisions under R. 220 RoP warranted further examination, and admitted the appeal while granting the parties an opportunity to submit further written observations.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al.
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court concerning three infringement actions brought by Ericsson against multiple defendants (including Transsion group entities and others) relating to three standard essential patents. The Transsion defendants filed a R.9.3 Application seeking an extension of the deadline for filing their combined non-technical Statement of Defence, arguing they needed in-house access to confidential information to prepare a FRAND defence. The court dismissed the application, finding it was filed too late, the requested extension was open-ended, and that access by representatives and experts alone was sufficient at this stage.
Nissan Deutschland GmbH v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd.
Nissan Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against EP 1903733 before the Unified Patent Court's Central Division in Paris. Before service on the Defendant (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd.), the Claimant applied to withdraw the action under Rule 265 RoP. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees (EUR 13,250) under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP.
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (UPC_CFI_2282/2025)
Automobile Dacia S.A. filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited concerning European Patent EP1770912 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat). After Avago filed its Defence along with an application to amend the patent, Dacia applied to withdraw the action under Rule 265 RoP, with Avago's consent and an agreement that each party would bear its own costs. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the decision to be entered on the Register.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al.
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) in three consolidated infringement actions brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against multiple defendants including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities, concerning three standard essential patents (EP 2 712 236 B1, EP 3 836 631 B1, and EP 3 245 744 B1). The order addresses the Transsion defendants' applications for an extension of time to file their combined non-technical Statement of Defence (including FRAND aspects) and for revision of a prior order, both premised on the ongoing dispute over the confidentiality regime governing access to Ericsson's confidential information and comparable licenses. The Court granted a two-week extension of the non-technical SoD deadline to 29 May 2026, invited further submissions on the confidentiality regime, and set deadlines for the parties' further comments.
Robert Bosch Entities v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage (UPC-CoA-50/2026)
This procedural order concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the language to be used at an oral hearing. The Appellants (multiple Robert Bosch entities) requested that the hearing be held in English or that their representative be permitted to speak in English, while the Respondent (Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage) consented to the hearing being held in English. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the oral hearing of 26 May 2026 be conducted in English, without changing the language of the proceedings.
Robert Bosch GmbH & Others v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns an appeal by multiple Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Paris Local Division in infringement proceedings brought by Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage concerning European patent EP 4 144 599. The Bosch appellants requested that the scheduled hearing be conducted in English, or alternatively that their representative be permitted to speak in English, citing insufficient fluency in French. Valeo agreed that the hearing should be held in English. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the oral proceedings at the May 26, 2026 hearing would be conducted in English, without changing the language of the appeal proceedings.
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB – Request for Access (UPC_CFI_1026/2026) v.Ex Parte
This decision concerns a request filed by BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in connection with patent infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_661/2026) brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against multiple Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. concerning EP 4 277 422, EP 2 506 479, and EP 3 397 009. After the judge-rapporteur informed Ericsson that it could not expect a production order regarding a third-party licence agreement without properly informing its licensee, Ericsson updated its licensees on the confidentiality regime, and the Applicant withdrew its request. The Mannheim Local Division permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and declined to award costs.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS & Substipharm
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal against an order of the Central Division Milan requiring the appellant, La Siddhi Consultancy Limited, to provide security for costs in the amount of €75,000 in revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 592 333. The court held that the appellant had failed to substantiate its financial position and that its claimed SME status did not, in itself, dispense with the obligation to provide security for costs under R. 158 RoP.
Shinkyung Inc. v.Boa Technologies Inc. (Application for Security for Costs)
This order concerns an application by Defendant 2 Shinkyung Inc. under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure for security for costs in proceedings concerning EP 3 003 087 B1 before the Local Division Düsseldorf. Shinkyung sought EUR 200,000 in security, citing the alleged poor financial state of Boa Technologies' holding company CODI. The court dismissed the application, holding that only the financial situation of the claimant (Boa Technologies) is relevant, not that of its non-party holding company, and finding that Boa Technologies had demonstrated sufficient financial means.
Boa Technology Inc. v.Zuatu Cycling International d.o.o. & Shinkyung Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' request for security for costs (EUR 200,000) in proceedings concerning EP 2 805 639 B2. The Court held that only the financial situation of the Claimant itself (Boa Technology Inc.) should be considered, not that of its holding company CODI, and found that the Claimant had demonstrated sufficient financial means to compensate the Defendants for legal costs.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
Procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Hamburg) following an interim conference in two related infringement actions (UPC_CFI_494/2025 and UPC_CFI_495/2025) brought by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft against HMD Global Oy concerning European Patents EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 590 590. The court addressed the value of the actions, admission of auxiliary requests and amended operational requests, the exhaustion defence relating to the AAC Patent License Agreement, and the FRAND defence. The court admitted the Claimant's FRAND submission but dismissed the Defendant's request for a further opportunity to comment on it.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed an infringement action against numerous Geely Group entities (including Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart companies) regarding European Patent EP 4 090 075, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. During the written procedure, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and sought withdrawal of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side under the new Rule 370.9(b) RoP (applicable from January 1, 2026), while rejecting Nokia's request for a 60% reimbursement.
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 case concerns a request for revision (R. 333 RoP) filed by defendants Adobe against an order of the judge-rapporteur dated April 24, 2026, which had rejected the defendants' requests to declare inadmissible or summarily dismiss KEEEX's claim for provisional damages (€120 million) made in its reply brief. The panel rejected all of Adobe's arguments, confirming that the provisional damages claim was not contrary to the procedural protocol, was not late, and did not warrant summary dismissal at this stage. The panel also declined to grant leave to appeal.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm (EP 3 511 174)
This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174 (DE and UK designations), a patent relating to lithographic printing plate precursors. The consolidated appeals (UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025, UPC_CoA_882/2025) addressed issues of claim construction, private prior use, international jurisdiction over non-UPC patent designations, joint tortfeasorship, and front-loaded proceedings. The Court of Appeal issued important headnotes on the UPC's international jurisdiction, particularly regarding European patents validated in non-UPC territories, and on how the Court should handle infringement and revocation actions involving EU/LC and non-EU/LC European patents.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. & Others (UPC-CFI-0002246/2025)
This is an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) dated 2 June 2026, concerning an application to vary the operative part of an earlier order of 28 May 2026 in an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. against several Oppo entities regarding patent EP3944587. The parties jointly requested minor variations to the disclosure obligations regarding KPN's licensing agreements and to the deadline for the Statement of Defence. The Judge-Rapporteur allowed the joint request and ordered the variations as requested.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. & Others
An infringement action concerning European Patent EP2387844 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division). The patent had been revoked by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO, and the claimant KPN had filed a petition for review with the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP pending a final, non-appealable decision in the EPO opposition proceedings, and the court granted the joint request.
Sun Patent Trust v.LYNK & CO International AB and Others
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action before the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 618 514 against seven defendants, including LYNK & CO, Zeekr, Lotus Cars, and Smart Europe entities. The Claimant subsequently requested permission to withdraw the action, with all parties agreeing that each would bear its own costs. The Panel permitted the withdrawal and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees to the Claimant.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited & Others (UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026)
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited
Dyson Technology Limited filed a request to impose a penalty payment against Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited for alleged infringement of orders from the Court of Appeal and the Local Division Hamburg concerning European Patent EP3119235. During oral proceedings in a related case, the parties reached a settlement that included the withdrawal of the penalty request and an agreement not to seek cost reimbursement. The court permitted the withdrawal, confirmed that no cost decision was required, and set the value of the enforcement proceedings at EUR 100,000.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2237738. Align Technology sought to disregard the Defendants' late-filed non-infringement arguments (paragraphs 49-57 of the Rejoinder) and Exhibits AR 12 and AR 13, arguing they were raised for the first time in the Rejoinder rather than in the Statement of Defence. The Judge-rapporteur granted Align's application, declaring the new arguments and exhibits inadmissible and ordering they not be relied upon at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS & Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc. & Others (EP 4 252 857)
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European patent EP 4 252 857. Both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims before the closure of the written procedure and requested reimbursement of 50% of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawals, closed both proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of court fees under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable from 1 January 2026.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH
The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court addressed a preliminary objection filed by Defendant 1 (Infoblox Inc., a US company) contesting the UPC's international jurisdiction over it in an infringement action concerning EP 2 005 696 B1. The Claimant sought relief against all three defendants in Germany, France, Finland, and the UK. The court held that while jurisdiction under Article 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation could be established via anchor defendants for UPC member states, the Claimant failed to plead facts showing that the anchor defendants (German entities) jointly infringed the UK part of the patent.
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.