European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 54 · 1,592 total
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
This UPC CFI decision addresses a procedural hurdle in an infringement case, specifically the successful completion of service against a defendant domiciled in China. The court found that despite multiple rejections by Chinese authorities due to minor formal issues, the claimant's attempts complied with The Hague Service Convention and UPC Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the court declared the service valid, allowing the substantive infringement proceedings to move forward without further delays.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP v.STADAPHARM GmbH a.o.
In a significant ruling for the pharmaceutical sector, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466, which covered a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. This decision immediately dismissed the associated infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic competitors such as Stada and Dr Reddy's. The ruling underscores the vulnerability of patents, even those related to specific medical uses, when challenged successfully on grounds of invalidity.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a.o.
Topsoe A/S sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and two other entities in anticipation of a main infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 802 413 B1, which covers hydrogen production via steam methane reforming. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements under the UPC Agreement for obtaining evidence preservation before commencing full litigation.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a. o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
This interim conference in the UPC focused heavily on procedural matters for a complex infringement case involving Canon and Katun regarding developer supply containers. The court established clear deadlines, including December 18, 2025, for cost estimates and translations, while preparing detailed feature breakdowns of the claims for the upcoming oral hearing. This order signals that the parties are moving into the substantive phase, with the full panel set to decide on infringement and damages.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Et al.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in The Hague addressed a dispute over the number of conditional amendments (Auxiliary Requests or ARs) filed by the claimant Maxell against Samsung. Samsung argued that 44 ARs were excessive and requested an extension to respond. The Court rejected both arguments, finding that the complexity was justified by the extensive invalidity attacks raised by Samsung and that the ARs effectively covered a limited set of core features. This ruling confirms the court's discretion in managing complex cases while maintaining procedural efficiency.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
In this UPC decision, the court addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation concerning a plastic purification device. The court dismissed the infringement suit, emphasizing that remedies like recall or destruction are generally inapplicable in cases of indirect infringement. Crucially, the ruling set high standards for provisional damages claims, requiring plausible factual support, and clarified the burden of proof in revocation actions, demanding detailed explanations of prior art combinations rather than mere citation.
Amycel LLC v.Spyra
This UPC decision addressed an application by the Defendant (Spyra) to set aside a prior default judgment in an infringement action against Amycel LLC. The Court dismissed the R.356 application, finding that the procedural requirements for setting aside the default were not met due to earlier notices provided to the Defendant. Crucially, the Court also rectified the original Default-Decision, replacing the reference to Rule 356 with clear instructions on how and when an appeal could be lodged at the Court of Appeal.
Headwater Research LLC v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC allowed both parties to withdraw their respective actions. Headwater Research LLC withdrew its infringement claim against Apple Inc., and in return, the Defendants agreed to withdraw their counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 107 243 B1. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to a swift closure of complex patent litigation proceedings within the UPC framework.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a claim for damages and costs arising from patent infringement concerning textile machinery. The court confirmed that while the respondent was liable for infringement, it rejected the claimant's request for provisional damages based on reputational harm due to insufficient evidence. The ruling highlights the strict evidentiary requirements needed to prove non-economic damages in UPC proceedings.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case, ALD France S.A.S challenged the validity of EP 3 083 107 B1 against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG. The respondent argued that the action was abusive and constituted double joinder due to organizational ties with a related company involved in parallel proceedings. The Central Division rejected these arguments, affirming ALD France's independent legal standing and upholding the principle that fragmented patent litigation is permissible under the UPC framework.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS (collectively 'rekvisiti')
This UPC decision addressed a request for penalty payments related to evidence preservation in an infringement case concerning EP 4 238 202 B1. The Court found that the defendants significantly delayed providing crucial access codes and information, leading to a partial defeat of the evidence preservation purpose. Consequently, the court imposed a total fine of EUR 67,500 on the respondents.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l.
In this UPC case, Roche sought provisional measures against Menarini regarding the infringement of its sandwich sensor patent (EP 1 962 668 B1), which covers implantable sensors for continuous glucose monitoring. While the main application for an injunction was dismissed, the court issued important legal guidelines concerning claim scope and territorial reach of manufacturing injunctions. The decision reinforces principles on how process claims interact with product claims and confirms that anti-infringement measures can apply even when production occurs outside the UPC contracting states.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the Local Division Mannheim rejected Centripetal Limited's attempt to reopen an oral hearing and compel Defendants (Keysight Technologies) to provide source code. The Court emphasized that reopening hearings is a rare exception, not a mechanism for introducing new infringement arguments after proceedings have closed. The decision underscores the strict procedural discipline within the UPC, requiring claimants to raise all substantive issues during the written phase.
3V Sigma S.p.A v.A.G.A. S.r.l.
This UPC decision concerns a request for provisional measures aimed at protecting evidence related to alleged patent infringement in the cosmetic industry. 3V Sigma sought an order to secure technical and commercial documentation regarding a competing UV filter, MFSorb 513. Although the initial protective measure was granted against ACEF Srl, the subsequent appeal/request for review by AGA and ACEF was fully dismissed by the Milan Local Division. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements for applicants seeking ex parte evidence protection.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 3 769 722, the UPC Court of First Instance granted both parties' requests to stay the proceedings. This decision is highly significant as it links the outcome of the UPC litigation directly to the parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Furthermore, the court provisionally established strict confidentiality measures for sensitive documents exchanged between the parties, setting a clear precedent for managing trade secrets within the UPC framework.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In a significant decision, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed Centripetal Limited's infringement action against Keysight Technologies regarding its patent on efficient network protection. The Court found that the Defendants' products did not infringe the claims of EP 3 821 580 B1. This ruling underscores the high burden of proof required in UPC infringement cases, particularly when dealing with complex technical systems and alternative claim interpretations.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addresses procedural matters in a patent infringement case involving Aesculap AG and several Shanghai Bojin entities concerning EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, while also proposing to expand the scope of the dispute to include an additional product, the 'Bojin Rosenfräser.' This move is intended to ensure procedural efficiency and prevent future litigation.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation successfully sought enforcement measures against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. regarding violations of prior injunctions concerning the supply of infringing fluid delivery devices. The UPC Court of First Instance ruled that EOFLOW was in breach of its obligations, leading to a significant penalty payment being imposed. This decision underscores the strict nature of compliance with interim and final injunctive relief within the Unified Patent Court system.
BARCO NV v.YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
This UPC decision concerns the dismissal of a Preliminary Objection filed by YEALINK against BARCO NV. YEALINK had challenged the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division, but following a favorable ruling from the Court of Appeal confirming jurisdiction, YEALINK voluntarily withdrew its objection. The court subsequently closed the proceedings based on this withdrawal, allowing the main infringement case to proceed.
CooperSurgical, Inc. v.European Distribution Center Motiva BVBA; Establishment Labs S.A.; PulseLavage AB
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 302 292 B1, the infringement action brought by CooperSurgical was withdrawn with the consent of the Defendants. The Court then issued a comprehensive cost decision that significantly favored the Defendants. Despite the withdrawal, the Claimant was ordered to pay over €187,000 in costs and expenses to the defendants, although they were granted reimbursement for 60% of their court fees.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed Windhager's request to stay the execution of a judgment issued by the Local Division in an infringement case against bellissa HAAS GmbH. Although Windhager had raised revocation defenses, the court found insufficient grounds to grant the stay. The ruling reinforces the high threshold required for obtaining a stay of execution under UPC rules, emphasizing that mere allegations of error are not enough.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, Realme Germany GmbH, Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V., OTECH Italia S.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Innovative Sonic Corporation and OPPO et al. The appeal sought to overturn the initial decision to switch from German to English, arguing that this change created undue costs for the claimant. However, the Court upheld the original order, finding that English was the common working language across the parties' global operations and technology field. This ruling reinforces the court's discretion in prioritizing fairness based on practical factors like industry language and party domicile.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
This UPC decision is an interim order setting the procedural roadmap for a revocation action brought by TCL EUROPE SAS against Corning Incorporated concerning EP 3 296 274. The court confirmed the case value and scheduled an oral hearing for February 3, 2026. Both parties are now focused on preparing detailed submissions addressing inventive step and sufficiency in light of recent Court of Appeal precedents.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and others (Astronergy group)
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich found that Chint New Energy Technology Co. and its affiliates infringed the patent EP 2 787 541 concerning advanced solar cell technology. The court granted an injunction requiring the defendants to cease sales of their 'ASTRO N' series modules in key EU markets (Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands). Furthermore, the claimant was awarded interim costs, and the defendant's counterclaim for patent revocation was dismissed.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement and revocation case involving GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and Moderna et al., the UPC Court of First Instance decided to split the combined counterclaim for revocation. The court found that combining the two counterclaims, one for each patent (EP4066856 and EP4226941), was procedurally impractical given the different opposition stages before the EPO. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation to ensure procedural fairness and proper fee assessment.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard sought preliminary injunctions against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic regarding its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). Although the court dismissed the application for provisional measures in most aspects, it issued a highly specific order. This ruling forces the defendant to disclose detailed information about the origin and distribution of infringing products, backed by severe daily penalty payments if they fail to comply.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision focused heavily on procedural aspects within an application for provisional measures concerning patent EP 3 732 827. The parties, Barco N.V. and Yealink, contested the competence of the local division and the initial costs order. While the core infringement dispute was not decided, the Court provided clear guidance on divisional competence under Art. 33 UPCA and established a precedent for interim cost awards in provisional measures cases. The ruling is significant for practitioners as it clarifies how courts should approach jurisdictional challenges and the practical application of interim relief mechanisms within the UPC framework.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for provisional measures, focusing heavily on procedural issues such as competence and the awarding of interim costs. The court clarified that internal division competence within the UPC is distinct from EU regulations like Brussels I Recast. Crucially, it established a practical guideline for interim cost awards in these urgent proceedings, setting a precedent for how parties can recover expenses pending final decisions.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
This Local Division Mannheim decision addressed procedural requests regarding the access and transcription of an oral hearing in a dispute between InterDigital and Amazon. The Court partially granted the defendants' request, allowing them to listen to the confidential audio recording at another UPC location. However, the core request for a complete, independently produced transcript was rejected. The ruling emphasizes the strict interpretation of procedural rules (R. 115 RoP) regarding hearing records, balancing the need for party access against maintaining confidentiality and preventing misuse outside the UPC framework.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI L.P, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
KEEEX SAS successfully defended its jurisdiction challenge against a large group of defendants including Adobe and OpenAI. The Paris Local Division rejected all preliminary objections, confirming that evidence gathered by a French judicial officer regarding online content is sufficient to establish territorial competence under UPC rules. This ruling reinforces the importance of local evidentiary procedures in establishing infringement grounds within the unified patent court system.
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.