European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 66 of 67 · 2,007 total
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. & Others (OPPO)
Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning the exchange of licenses and the establishment of a confidentiality club in an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. against several OPPO entities regarding EP2337403 and EP3944587. The Court largely adopted the parties' agreed text, resolving two outstanding disputes: it rejected Oppo's request to extend the Statement of Defence deadline until full license disclosure, and it sided with Oppo in reducing the counterparty response time for in-house access applications from 10 to 5 working days.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE and MAGUIN SAS
TIRU, a French waste-to-energy company and subsidiary of the PAPREC Group, brought patent infringement actions against VALINEA ENERGIE (a VEOLIA Group subsidiary) and MAGUIN SAS based on European Patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration furnace. The Central Division had maintained the patent in modified form. The Local Division of Paris rejected all of TIRU's infringement claims (both literal and by equivalence), rejected VALINEA's counterclaim for abusive procedure, and ordered TIRU to pay EUR 100,000 in costs to each defendant.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, and Rune Eilertsen
Hybridgenerator ApS, holder of European Patent EP 4 238 202 B1 concerning a mobile hybrid generator system, sued HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, and Rune Eilertsen for infringement of its patent by the MPU 1000 and MPU 2000 hybrid generators. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division in Copenhagen found the patent invalid for lack of sufficiency of disclosure and lack of inventive step, dismissed all infringement claims, and ordered Hybridgenerator to pay the defendants' costs capped at EUR 112,000.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy filed an infringement action (UPC_CFI_662/2025) against 32 defendants associated with the Geely Group concerning EP 3 799 333, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_160/2026). Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims. The Local Chamber Mannheim permitted the withdrawals, declared both proceedings terminated, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Shinkyung Inc. v.Boa Technology Inc. (UPC_CFI_998/2025)
Shinkyung Inc., a defendant in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 777 595 B1 before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Düsseldorf, applied for security for costs of EUR 200,000 against the claimant Boa Technology Inc. (BOA), citing the alleged poor financial state of BOA's parent holding company CODI. BOA opposed the application, arguing its financial stability was independent of CODI's stock price and that it was financially well. The Judge-Rapporteur dismissed the application, holding that only the financial situation of the claimant BOA—not its non-party parent CODI—should be considered, and finding that BOA had demonstrated sufficient financial means.
Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH v.BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH (UPC_CFI_714/2025)
Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH filed a nullity action before the Central Division (Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking revocation of claims 1, 2, 5, and 8–11 of European Patent EP 4 283 140 B1, which relates to a fastening element made of wood and/or wood materials. The claimant alleged inadmissible extension, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court partially upheld the action, partially revoking the patent to the extent it extends beyond the subject matter of auxiliary request I, while maintaining claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 in their granted form, and ordered costs to be borne 70% by the defendant and 30% by the claimant.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Sercomm Corporation, SerComm Deutschland GmbH, Sercomm France SARL, Sercomm Italia SRL
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action filed by Huawei Technologies against four Sercomm entities. The order, issued following an early interim hearing under Rule 105.5 RoP, sets dates for a further interim hearing and oral hearing, and addresses procedural matters including service, defense strategy, and potential separation of proceedings. The dispute concerns alleged indirect and direct infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1, which Huawei asserts is essential for WiFi6.
CARDO SYSTEMS Ltd. v.SHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
CARDO SYSTEMS Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 4 240 194 relating to a fastening device for head-protective gear, obtained a default judgment against Shenzhen Asmax and Hong Kong Yiheng for infringement of the patent through their Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX products. After the defendants failed to file any defence or enter an appearance despite valid service, the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Local Division) granted injunctive relief, an interim award for damages of €56,000, and an interim award for costs of €28,000, jointly and severally against both defendants.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning EP 3 476 616 (DE and UK designations) relating to lithographic/printing plates. Fujifilm had sued Kodak for patent infringement before the Mannheim Local Division, and Kodak counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance's revocation of the German designation, finding the patent valid and infringed by Kodak's Sonora plates, and granted extensive remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, and damages. For the UK designation, the Court of Appeal dismissed Fujifilm's appeal and held that the condition for Kodak's counterclaim for revocation was not fulfilled.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Ericsson Holding International B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V., Ericsson Telecomunicações, Lda.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Inventronics GmbH
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against Inventronics GmbH regarding European Patent No. 2 011 218 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before completion of the written procedure, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court accepted the withdrawal, reduced the value of the dispute to EUR 300,000, and ordered a partial refund of court fees in the amount of EUR 9,500 to the plaintiff.
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
Brita SE obtained an order from the Local Chamber Hamburg on December 9, 2025, against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for infringement of EP 2 131 940 B1, including a cease-and-desist obligation and an information disclosure obligation. After the defendant failed to comply with both obligations and waived its right to challenge the order, Brita sought renewed coercive measures. The court imposed a coercive fine of EUR 97,500 for continued advertising of the infringing embodiment on the defendant's websites and EUR 105,000 for continued non-compliance with the information order, while threatening further daily fines.
CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, Telekom Deutschland GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning a confidentiality request in an infringement dispute over European Patent EP 1 934 794 B1. The court partially granted the defendants' request for protection of confidential information under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure, classifying sales figures, infrastructure details, and internal technical/commercial information as confidential, but denying protection for customer names and customer information that were already publicly available.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court, Division Locale de Paris, concerning a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage against six entities of the Bosch group regarding European Patent EP4144599. The order addresses Valeo's requests to unconditionally limit its infringement claims by excluding certain AeroTwin APX products, withdrawing claims against Belgian and German territories, and withdrawing all claims against Defendant 5 (Bosch Productie). The court granted all of Valeo's requests, finding no legitimate interest for Bosch Productie to oppose the withdrawal, and declined to rule on costs at this stage.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital UK Limited, Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an application for withdrawal of an action for provisional measures. InterDigital, which had obtained ex parte preliminary measures against Amazon from the Mannheim Local Division, applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures with Amazon's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, finding no need for a cost decision since both parties agreed not to seek reimbursement of costs.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning an application for suspensive effect of an appeal against a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Local Division had found that EP 2 352 431 (relating to a breast tomosynthesis system) was infringed and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation. The appellants (Siemens entities) sought suspensive effect, arguing the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous and violated their right to be heard. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, finding no manifest error and no violation of the right to be heard.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others
This order concerns three appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, in which the appellants (Shenzhen Transsion and related entities) sought to withdraw their appeals against a confidentiality order issued by the Hague Local Division in underlying infringement proceedings brought by Ericsson concerning three European patents related to 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals and sought reimbursement of 50% of the court fees, with Ericsson's consent.
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application under Rule 353 RoP seeking rectification of a decision issued on 26.5.2026 in proceedings concerning EP 3 519 207 B1 (motorcycles tyre). Pirelli argued that the decision erroneously stated it had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023, which was later withdrawn on 26.11.2024, when in fact it had never filed any opt-out. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from page 9 of the decision.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a confidentiality order issued by The Hague Local Division in underlying infringement proceedings involving three European patents related to 4G LTE and 5G NR technology in the context of a FRAND licence dispute. After the parties reached a settlement providing for termination of the appeal proceedings by withdrawal of the underlying CFI proceedings, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals with Ericsson's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
This order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses the procedural treatment of conditional counterclaims for revocation. The Court of Appeal clarified that making a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible, and provided guidance on how the counterclaimant should proceed if the infringement claimant appeals a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.Acer Computer GmbH, CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.L, Acer Computer B.V, Acer Computer France
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request by the Claimant, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, for the production of evidence and a confidentiality regime under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure. The Claimant sought an order compelling a third party (the administrator of the Opus standard patent pool) to produce comparable license agreements relating to the Opus standard, which incorporates the patent in suit (EP2304723), in order to respond to the Defendants' FRAND defense. Both the Defendants and the third party consented to the request, and the Court granted the order, establishing a 'Highly Confidential Information' regime with restricted access.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning confidentiality requests and a change of language of proceedings in a patent infringement appeal. Fives ECL appealed the first instance decision dismissing its infringement claim against REEL GmbH regarding EP 1 740 740. The Court of Appeal granted a confidentiality order restricting access to certain business information, changed the language of proceedings from German to English, and conditionally approved the addition of a former employee to the confidentiality circle.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH, Cisco Systems, Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a withdrawal of appeal and a request for reimbursement of court fees. After the Local Division Hamburg dismissed Lionra's infringement action and Cisco's revocation counterclaim, Lionra appealed. Before the oral hearing, the parties settled and Lionra withdrew its appeal with Cisco's consent. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, deemed the cross-appeal withdrawn, and terminated the proceedings. However, it rejected Lionra's request for a 20% reimbursement of court fees, holding that the amended Rule 370.9 RoP (effective January 1, 2026) applied to the withdrawal request filed on July 6, 2026, which no longer provides for such reimbursement.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS
The appellants (Siemens entities) sought to withdraw their application for suspensive effect in appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-94/2026) relating to a counterclaim for revocation, arguing the application had been filed accidentally. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal under R. 265 RoP and granted the appellants' auxiliary request for reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 1,300), rejecting their main request for full reimbursement.
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC filed an application for provisional measures against MGI entities alleging infringement of four European patents relating to 'Cyclone Devices'. After the judge-rapporteur set a deadline of 24 July 2026 for MGI to file its objection, Respondent 1 (MGI TECH GmbH) sought an extension of that deadline. The judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, finding that more than two weeks from service was sufficient given the respondents' prior awareness of the patents from parallel Australian proceedings and Oxford's withdrawal of two of the four patents.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures (injunction) against ASUSTeK and Arvato in the Milan Local Division, related to ongoing main proceedings concerning EP 3 076 673 B1 (a video coding/HEVC patent). The application was filed after the main proceedings on the merits had commenced, with Ericsson citing delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were already in their final stages.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a confidentiality request filed by Fives ECL in its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Hamburg. The underlying dispute involves Fives' claim for damages based on alleged infringement of EP 1 740 740 by REEL GmbH, which was dismissed at first instance for insufficient evidence of lost profits and causation. The Court of Appeal provisionally restricted access to certain grey-highlighted information in the appeal brief and newly submitted annexes to REEL's authorized UPC representatives, pending REEL's response to the confidentiality request.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK and Arvato in connection with EP 2727342 B1, a patent related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology, during the final stages of pending main proceedings on the merits before the Milan Local Division. Ericsson argued urgency based on delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and ASUSTeK's launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new or supervening factual circumstances warranting interim relief beyond the temporal aggravation inherent in awaiting a final decision on the merits.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Division Munich concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1, where the Defendants sought to classify certain information in their Rejoinder and document production requests as Confidential or Highly Confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The Claimant requested that an external expert from Ankura Consulting Group LLC and his entire team be granted access to the highly confidential information. The Court granted confidentiality protections and restricted access to the highly confidential information to the Claimant's UPC representatives, its manager Jeremy Pitcock, and one named expert from Ankura, with the Claimant reserving the right to name two additional team members.
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.