European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 67 of 67 · 2,007 total
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, proprietor of EP 4 240 194 B1 relating to fastening devices for head-protective gear, obtained an ex parte injunction and seizure order against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited on 5 November 2025 during the EICMA motorcycle trade fair in Milan. The respondents applied for review of the order, challenging validity, infringement, and the balance of interests. The Milan Local Division revoked the provisional measures in their entirety, finding no infringement, no urgency, and that Cardo had breached its duty of candour, while ordering Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in interim costs and partially releasing the security deposit.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 1 998 686, which relates to occlusion devices for closing septal defects. The Düsseldorf Local Division had rejected Occlutech's application, finding it could not be established with sufficient certainty that Lepu's MemoCarna ASD and VSD occluders comprised a braiding of more than one wire. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the Attacked Embodiments do infringe claim 1 of the Patent, and granted the provisional measures ordering Lepu to cease offering, marketing, using, importing, or possessing the infringing products in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686, which relates to an occlusion instrument. Occlutech, the patent holder, sought preliminary measures against Lepu for allegedly infringing the patent with its MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD products. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf had rejected the preliminary measures, finding it could not be established with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiments comprised a mesh of more than one wire. The Court of Appeal set aside that decision, granted the preliminary measures, and ordered Lepu to cease the infringing activities in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, subject to a penalty of up to €250,000 per day of non-compliance.
Illumina, Inc. v.Element Biosciences, Inc, Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by several Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed their preliminary objections to jurisdiction. The court held that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA—commercial connection between defendants and the same alleged infringement—were satisfied, as membership in the same corporate group could establish a commercial connection and the alleged infringing wiper blade products (sold under MOPAR, BYD, and AEROTWIN brands) appeared substantially the same in structure and dimensions.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, Herrn Yong Cao
Evac Oy, a Finnish company, brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf against Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, and Mr. Yong Cao concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1, both relating to vacuum sewer systems. The court addressed the applicability of the five-year limitation period under Article 72 UPCA, holding that it applies only to financial compensation claims and not to injunctive relief, which is forward-looking. The court found infringement of EP 1 840 282 B1 by Defendants 1 and 3, granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, and ordered the defendants to pay damages, with costs split 70/30 in favor of the defendants.
Valeo Systèmes d'essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch SA, Robert Bosch Produktie SA, Robert Bosch DOO Beograd, Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) CO., LTD.
ORDONNANCE
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This case concerns an action for revocation of European Patent EP 2 643 717 ('Farbmischende Sammeloptik'), relating to a color and light mixing collecting optic for full-color pixels in outdoor display panels, spotlights, or signaling. The plaintiff and intervener (Chainzone Technology) sought full revocation on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, inadmissible extension, and insufficient disclosure. During the proceedings, the defendant (SWARCO) limited the patent before the EPO by deleting the word 'insbesondere' from claim 1. The Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent in its limited form, ordering the plaintiff and intervener to bear the costs.
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, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Paris) in an infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS based on European patent EP2949070 against multiple defendants including Adobe, OpenAI, TruePic, and C2PA-related entities. The defendants sought to strike certain arguments, evidence, and a new patent amendment request from KEEEX's memorandum of June 5, 2026, as inadmissible and tardy. The judge-rapporteur largely granted the defendants' requests, striking most new infringement arguments and the new amendment request, while permitting limited additional submissions under Rule 36 RoP on specific points.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This case concerns a procedural dispute in damages proceedings before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court. Following a final 2025 decision finding that the Meril entities infringed Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 669 828, Edwards sought a deadline extension for filing its reply to Meril's defence because its UPC representative was not notified when the sub-registry changed the confidentiality status of documents. The court granted a limited two-day extension, finding Edwards' representative should have inquired with the sub-registry by 17 June 2026, but acknowledged that the CMS's lack of automatic notifications needed to be addressed.
LABS v.GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED, NAGOR LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS, EUROSILICONE SAS, GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L., GC AESTHETICS GmbH, GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U., GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED, ROMED N.V.
This order concerns an application under R.190 RoP filed by the GC Aesthetics group of companies in parallel UPC infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_1357/2025) and counterclaim for revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_629/2025) against LABS regarding EP 3 107 487 B1, which relates to Motiva breast implants including the Motiva SilkSurface. The Court ordered LABS to produce extensive evidence including sales figures, physical samples, promotional materials, third-party test reports, technical specifications, regulatory documentation, and Design History Files, aligning the requests and timeframes with parallel UK disclosure proceedings. The Court imposed a recurring penalty of €2,000 per day of delay to ensure compliance.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd, Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd, OROPE Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V., OTech Italia s.r.l., Realme Germany GmbH v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
OPPO filed a unified submission on 3 June 2026 in the infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_525/2025) that was intended to also cover the parallel revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_2022/2025) concerning European patent EP 3 346 616, but inadvertently only uploaded it to the infringement workflow. After the Court encouraged OPPO to file the submission in the correct revocation workflow, OPPO did so on 13 June 2026 and applied under Rule 9 RoP for confirmation that the time limit had been duly complied with. The Court confirmed that the time limit for filing the Reply to the Counterclaim for revocation had been duly complied with, treating the late upload as a mere technical correction.
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH, SEG Automotive Spain, S.A.U., SEG Automotive France SAS, Ferdinando Sorrentino, Gustavo Henrique Baldussi Ferreira, Claudio Ishamu Nakao, Frank Ahlborn
This order concerns an application to intervene filed by KSR International Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Automotive Technical Advisory Service GmbH in patent infringement proceedings brought by Valeo Electrification against SEG Automotive entities and individual officers concerning EP 3 157 142. The Interveners had collaborated with Defendant 1 in 2018–2019 on developing an inverter for the accused 'BRM 2.8' 48V e-machines and sought to intervene in support of the Defendants to avoid potential future recourse claims. The Düsseldorf Local Division admitted the Interveners, finding they had a direct and present legal interest, and aligned their deadline for filing a statement in intervention with the Defendants' deadline for filing their statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation, set at 16 July 2026.
Dall Energy ApS v.Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH
This appeal concerned an order for the production of evidence issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Copenhagen Local Division in patent infringement proceedings involving EP 2 334 762, which relates to a method for producing clean hot gas from solid fuel. The Court of Appeal held that while the Court of First Instance did not err in principle in ordering disclosure under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, it exceeded the limits of its discretion by ordering an overly broad scope of disclosure. The order was set aside in part and replaced with a more limited measure confined to construction drawings and operation and maintenance manuals relating to the Polyheld furnace at the Oberpullendorf site.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH
SILIMED sought review of the Registrar's decision rejecting its application to remove an opt-out filed by Polytech for European patent EP 2 581 193. The Court of Appeal held that the application for review was unfounded because SILIMED failed to demonstrate that Polytech was not entitled to be registered as proprietor of the patent at the time the opt-out was filed on 30 March 2023. The court found that the subsequent German court decision ordering transfer of the patent to SILIMED, which became final only on 5 January 2026, had no retroactive effect.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by IPG Laser to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 951 625. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 50% refund of the court fees (€21,145) to IPG Laser, rejecting the request for a full refund.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
This case concerns an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for inspection and evidence preservation (Inspektion und Beweissicherung) against ANCA Europe GmbH in connection with European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The inspection was executed at ANCA's trade fair stand at the 'GrindingHub' trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026, and an expert subsequently prepared a detailed description of the findings. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant, as the respondent did not assert any confidentiality interests regarding the information contained therein.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, proprietor of European Patent 3 443 066 (EP'066) relating to methods for detecting cancer via cfDNA sequencing, sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics companies for offering the MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHIA DDM™ test. The Paris Local Division rejected the application, finding EP'066 likely invalid for added matter and ordering Guardant to pay EUR 400,000 in interim costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the rejection but reduced the interim costs award to EUR 300,000, declared Sophia's cross-appeal inadmissible, and ordered Guardant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC
This order concerns the enforcement of a decision dated 6 May 2026 in proceedings between Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Claimant) and Asustek Computer Inc (Defendant) concerning European Patent No EP 2 819 131 B1. On 15 June 2026, the Claimant notified the Court pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP of its intention to enforce the decision, and the Defendant raised no objection. The Local Division in Lisbon acknowledged that the Claimant had complied with Rule 118.8 RoP in respect of the orders of the decision in their entirety, with effect from 15 June 2026.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request for penalty payments under Art. 82 UPCA and R. 354.4 RoP following a preliminary injunction of 12 February 2026 that had been imposed on five of the six Defendants for infringing EP 4 346 690 B1 through their 'iOrtho' software (release 5.2) with its 'Live Now' feature. The Court found that the Defendants' User Manual available on their website constituted an 'offering' within the meaning of Art. 25 UPCA for a duration of 33 days, but that the Instagram and Facebook posts did not constitute such an offering. A penalty payment of EUR 49,500 was imposed, costs were split 50/50, and leave to appeal was granted.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 808 512 B1, where Ecovacs Robotics (Claimant) sought production of source code and pseudo code extracts from Roborock (Defendant) under Rule 190 RoP. The Court dismissed the production of documents request, finding that Claimant failed to identify specific contested facts and that the request was premature given Defendant had already provided substantiated defence arguments. The Court granted a partial 10-day extension of time limits for Claimant to file its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, setting the deadline to 2 September 2026, while reserving decisions on Defendant's confidentiality requests.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
Promosome LLC brought an infringement action before the Local Division Munich against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365, directed at mRNA technology used in the Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine. The Defendants filed counterclaims for revocation against Promosome and the patent proprietor, The Scripps Research Institute. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety for Germany, France, and Sweden, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action, with costs borne by the unsuccessful parties.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. et al.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Local Division Düsseldorf's order granting provisional measures in favor of Align Technology, Inc. against the Angelalign Technology group. The court found that the 'Live Now' feature of the appellants' iOrtho orthodontic planning software infringed claims 1, 13, and 15 of Align's EP 4 346 690 patent, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The appeal was rejected and the appellants were ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute v.Meta Platforms, Inc.
Procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European patent EP 3 258 692 B1. The parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings because they had reached an amicable settlement in out-of-court negotiations that still required implementation. The court granted the stay under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure, ordering the parties to update the court by 10 August 2026 if they had not withdrawn their respective actions.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of an infringement action and partial revocation of European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1. The Local Division Hamburg had previously revoked the patent to the extent of claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, ordering the Claimant (Teleflex) to bear the costs. The Defendant (Speed Care Mineral) applied for reimbursement of its legal costs and court fees, and the Court ordered the Claimant to reimburse a total of €211,000.00, comprising €200,000.00 in legal fees (the applicable ceiling for recoverable costs) and €11,000.00 in court fees.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
This is a cost decision by the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court following Gilead's success in revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_552/25) concerning EP3854403. Gilead sought EUR 800,000 in recoverable legal costs from AMMS, which AMMS did not dispute in amount but requested be stayed pending appeal or paid in instalments. The Court ordered AMMS to pay the full amount within four weeks, rejecting both the stay request and the instalment request, and also rejecting Gilead's late-filed request for interest.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE INC. and ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED
This case concerns a discretionary review (Rule 220.3) filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The dispute centers on whether KEEEX SAS could introduce a provisional damages claim (€100 million material and €20 million moral) in its reply brief after having initially claimed over €6.6 billion in damages and then agreeing to withdraw that claim. The Court of Appeal rejected the discretionary review, finding the contested order was not manifestly erroneous.
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.