European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 67 · 2,007 total
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. sought provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, a patent relating to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants, with Defendant 1 having reached a settlement and not defending against most motions, and Defendant 2 having failed to file any objection despite being served through the Chinese Central Authority.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA
Polidoro S.p.a., the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 037 175 concerning a premixed burner, sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and its parent company NV Bekaert SA for patent infringement regarding two types of premixed burners of the 'Multipat' series. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claim 1 as granted (B1) and claim 1 as maintained in limited form (B2), dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall/removal/destruction, and information, with costs split 75% to defendants and 25% to the claimant.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order concerns a request by IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH for Belparts Group N.V. to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 500,000 under Rule 158.1 RoP in proceedings involving a revocation action, application to amend a patent, and counterclaim for infringement regarding EP3812870. IMI argued Belparts was economically vulnerable based on a 2023 loss, while Belparts countered with evidence of positive financial results, a sizable patent portfolio, and a binding assurance from its parent group company AFRISO-WERK Georg Fritz GmbH & Co. KG. The Court of First Instance dismissed the request, finding IMI failed to meet its burden of substantiation and proof.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for inspection of files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link sought access to redacted pleadings from infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321, arguing a legitimate interest as Huawei was suing them for infringement of the same patent. The Local Chamber Munich partially granted TP-Link's request, prompting Huawei to appeal and seek suspensive effect to prevent disclosure before the appeal could be decided.
XXX v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. / MicroTech Medical (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd., et al.
An unnamed applicant sought access to the case file of UPC_CFI_830/2025, a provisional measures action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against MicroTech Medical and six other defendants concerning EP 3960072. The applicant claimed to represent an unnamed competitor in the continuous glucose measurement (CGM) device field needing a freedom-to-operate analysis. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficiently specific interest to override the integrity of the fast-tracked proceedings.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
This case concerned European Patent 2,493,466, held by Sanofi SA, relating to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer. Sanofi filed infringement actions against STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva entities for marketing generic versions of its JEVTANA product, while the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.STADAPHARM GmbH a.o.
Sanofi and related entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (Stada, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the claimed subject-matter lacked inventive step over prior art describing Phase III clinical trials with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions accordingly.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France and others
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs of both the counterclaims and the infringement proceedings.
Sanofi SA and Others v.STADAPHARM GmbH and Others
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs of both the counterclaims and the infringement proceedings.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
This order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed the issue of service of process on Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd., a defendant domiciled in China, in a patent infringement action concerning EP 4 240 194. Service attempts via the Hague Service Convention were rejected twice by the Chinese central authority on the formal ground that the documents did not use the full name 'Hong Kong, China' when referring to Hong Kong. The court held that Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention is fully applicable in the UPC system and declared the steps already taken to constitute valid service, ordering publication of the order on the court's website.
Sanofi SA v.STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, and Zentiva France
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court revoked European Patent 2,493,466 in its entirety in consolidated proceedings involving three sets of defendants (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) who had filed counterclaims for revocation against Sanofi's infringement actions. The patent, which relates to the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel (marketed as JEVTANA), was found invalid for lack of inventive step. Consequently, all three infringement actions were dismissed, and Sanofi was ordered to bear the costs of both the revocation counterclaims and the infringement actions.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against three groups of generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, finding that the skilled person would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on prior art describing a Phase III clinical trial with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions.
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
The defendants applied under Rule 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (established in Taiwan), to provide security for costs of the proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 346 616. The Local Division Munich held that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, as neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provides certainty for such enforcement. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within six weeks, but rejected the request for security concerning a counterclaim for revocation that had not yet been filed.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH & Others
This is an interim conference order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, which relates to a developer supply container for a developer receiving apparatus. The order addresses various procedural matters in preparation for the oral hearing, including translations, feature breakdowns of the patent claims, deadlines for submissions, and the course of the oral hearing. The Defendants agreed to drop their contestation of service on Defendant 3, and the Court set deadlines for translations and cost estimates by 18 December 2025.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 2 061 575 B1, directed at a device for continuous filtering of impurities from a plastic melt. The claimant, a licensee of the patent, attacked plastic cleaning devices (LDF 300 and LDF 500 models) and replacement disc filters manufactured by the defendant. The court partially upheld the infringement claim while dismissing the revocation counterclaim, thereby maintaining the patent in its entirety.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, and HyGear B.V.
Topsoe A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of the respondents ahead of a potential main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the respondents to grant access to an electrically heated hydrogen production plant bearing the inscription 'www.hygear.com' on its outer wall, including the opening of the reactor, subject to various procedural safeguards.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2061230. The court dismissed Samsung's request to extend the deadline for filing its rejoinder/reply submissions and admitted Maxell's 44 auxiliary requests into the proceedings. The court found the number of auxiliary requests reasonable given the large number of invalidity attacks asserted by Samsung and the manageable number of new features actually introduced.
Spyra v.Amycel LLC (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
The defendant, Spyra, filed an application under Rule 356 to set aside a decision by default issued against him in an infringement action brought by Amycel LLC concerning European patent EP 1 993 350 B2. The Court held that the application was inadmissible because the defendant had been put on notice in earlier orders (the R.275-Order and the R.320-Order) that a further decision by default would be final, and the same panel assessing the same factual and legal situation would not reach a different outcome. The Court rectified the default decision ex officio under Rule 353 to indicate that the proper legal remedy was an appeal within two months, not a Rule 356 application.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
This is an appeal from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the infringement of European Patent EP 2 145 848 relating to false twist texturizing machinery. Oerlikon sued Bhagat for exhibiting an allegedly infringing machine at the ITMA trade fair in Milan in June 2023. The Court of Appeal annulled the first instance's provisional damages award of €15,000 for reputational harm, finding the evidence insufficient, but otherwise upheld the finding of infringement and the cost allocation against Bhagat.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co . KG
Anordnung
Headwater Research LLC v.Apple Inc. a. o.
Headwater Research LLC filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities concerning European Patent EP 3 107 243 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the claimant withdrew the infringement action and the defendants withdrew the counterclaim for revocation, with both parties agreeing to bear their own costs and requesting reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The Düsseldorf Local Division allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with 60% reimbursement of court fees.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et al.
Centripetal Limited sued Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH for direct infringement of Claim 16 and indirect infringement of Claim 1 of European Patent EP 3 821 580 B1, relating to methods and systems for efficient network protection, in Germany, Italy, France, and the Netherlands. The core dispute centered on the construction of the 'broker' feature and whether the defendants' Network Visibility products implemented the claimed three-stage security system. The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the infringement action, finding that the claimant failed to substantiate that the attacked embodiments performed the claimed broker functionality of determining a cyber analysis system based on threat metadata.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Copenhagen partially upheld a request for penalty payments against the defendants for their delayed compliance with a court order to preserve evidence in a patent infringement matter concerning EP 4 238 202 B1. The Court found that the defendants had delayed providing login credentials for their financial system, email accounts, and a seized computer by a total of 36 days, and imposed a joint penalty of EUR 67,500.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others
This is an order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning three related cases (UPC_CFI_775/2025, UPC_CFI_776/2025, and UPC_CFI_777/2025) involving patent EP 3 769 722 B1. Following a merits decision on 21 July 2025 in case CFI 380/2023, the parties jointly requested a stay of the cost proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal (case T-241/25-3.2.02). The Court granted the stay and also provisionally granted the parties' confidentiality requests regarding certain cost application documents.
3V Sigma S.p.A v.A.G.A. S.r.l. and ACEF Srl
Unified Patent Court decision.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et al.
Procedural order of the Local Division Mannheim concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant requested reopening of the oral hearing after its closure, alleging that the Defendants' representative made false statements during the hearing regarding the lack of gateway and broker functionalities in the source code of the attacked embodiment. The Court rejected the request, holding that Rule 114 RoP is reserved for exceptional cases and cannot be used to present new infringement allegations after closure of the oral hearing.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. & Others
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court granted provisional measures in favor of F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A.Menarini Diagnostics France SASU for infringement of European Patent EP 1 962 668 B1, which protects an implantable sandwich sensor for determining analyte concentration. The dispute concerned the CGM system 'GlucoMen iCan o3' manufactured in China by Changsha Sinocare Inc. and distributed in Europe by the Menarini defendants. The court issued an injunction, ordered delivery up of infringing products, information disclosure, and cost reimbursement.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation applied to the Central Division Milan for the determination of penalty payments against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for alleged non-compliance with a Court of Appeal Preliminary Injunction (30 April 2025) and a Decision on the Merits (22 July 2025) concerning patent EP4201327 relating to fluid delivery devices such as insulin pumps. EOFLOW argued that the infringing products were supplied by Menarini Diagnostics under a settlement agreement with Insulet, and that the shipments occurred before the Decision on the Merits. The Court ordered EOFLOW to pay EUR 150,000 as a penalty payment and EUR 10,000 in costs.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. a. o.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled an oral hearing for June 17, 2026, added Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a party, and proposed a consensual procedural approach regarding a request for restitutio in integrum by Defendant 1 and the inclusion of the 'Bojin Rosenfräser' product embodiment into the proceedings.
CooperSurgical, Inc. v.European Distribution Center Motiva BVBA, Establishment Labs S.A. and PulseLavage AB
This case concerned an infringement action filed by CooperSurgical, Inc. before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) regarding EP 3 302 292 B1. After the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent on 30 September 2025, the Claimant withdrew the action. The Court allowed the withdrawal and assessed the costs to be reimbursed to the Defendants, ordering the Claimant to pay €105,757.90 to Defendants 1-2 and €81,423.33 to Defendant 3, while also ordering reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimant.
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.