European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 73 · 2,185 total
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 (relating to a selector for an on-load tap-changer), for an inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court had previously issued an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026. Following the respondent's review application and an oral hearing on July 20, 2026, the court modified the confidentiality provisions of the original order, supplemented it based on the parties' joint declarations, and rejected further requests.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 284 B1 relating to an on-load tap-changer (Laststufenschalter), for an inspection and evidence preservation order under Article 60 of the UPC Agreement against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court initially granted an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026, and following an oral hearing on July 20, 2026, issued a modified order on July 27, 2026 adjusting the confidentiality provisions and the mechanism for access to the expert's report.
WEPA Nederland B.V. v.Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag
This case management order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the reimbursement of overpaid appeal court fees. WEPA had appealed an order of the Local Division The Hague confirming a preservation of evidence order and paid 14,600 EUR in appeal fees, but argued the correct fee was 5,000 EUR. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the fixed fee under Rule 220.1(c) RoP was 5,000 EUR with no additional value-based fee, and ordered the Registry to reimburse 9,600 EUR.
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V. v.Dolby International AB (EP 3 605 534)
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., as a member of the public, sought access to the court file of concluded main proceedings (UPC_CFI_226/2024) between Dolby International AB and Optoma entities concerning EP 3 605 534. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf partially granted the application, allowing access to the statement of claim with specified paragraphs and personal data redacted, while excluding the annexes.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihr, Rechtsanwältin v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihre Komplem
ORDER
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
This case before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerned a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against patent EP 3 083 107 B1 owned by Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG. The plaintiff requested withdrawal of the nullity action and refund of 60% of court fees, alternatively 50%. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the case terminated, and ordered a 50% refund of court fees (10,000 EUR) under the amended Rule 370.9(b) RoP effective January 1, 2026, rejecting the request for 60%.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Disney entities for infringement of European Patent EP 2 449 782, which relates to methods and apparatus for signaling intra prediction for large blocks in video encoding and decoding. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court found that Disney had infringed the patent by offering and placing on the market encoded picture data and bitstreams in several Contracting Member States. The court dismissed Disney's counterclaim for revocation and issued injunctive relief, recall and removal orders, and information/accounting orders, while apportioning costs 90% to the Defendants and 10% to the Claimant.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr
ORDER
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr
ORDER
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
This case before the UPC Local Division of Milan concerns patent infringement claims by Prinoth against Xelom regarding European patents EP 2507436 and EP 1995159, both relating to snow groomer (battipista) technology. Following an ex parte evidence preservation order executed in April 2025, Prinoth sought additional evidence including document production, physical inspection, and judicial experiments to prove infringement. The Judge Rapporteur granted the request for physical inspection and wei
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 procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris addressed Adobe's request to modify the security for costs previously ordered against KEEEX SAS in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP294090. The court found the modification request admissible but determined that only a 50% increase of the original €200,000 guarantee was appropriate, ordering KEEEX to provide an additional €100,000 in security within one month.
LiNA Medical AG, with its principal address Platz 3, 6039 Ro, schaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB, Jakob-Klar-Straße 14, 80796 v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd., Room 101, Building 6, Medi, Mr. Sam Lee, with a business address at Tonglu Qianyan Medte
Procedural Order
OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD
Provisional measures
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.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch (multiple entities)
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time under Rule 9.3 RoP. Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage had sued six Bosch group entities for infringement of EP 4144599 B1, and Bosch filed a counterclaim for revocation. Bosch sought an extension of time to file its rejoinder, arguing it only had access to a redacted version of Valeo's June 15, 2026 filing. The Judge-Rapporteur rejected the request, finding that a non-redacted version was filed simultaneously and that Bosch failed to exercise due diligence.
Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany v.Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, United States of America, Nathalie Sabotier
Decision
FUJIFILM Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Kodak, S.A., Madrid, Spain
This was an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a revocation action against European patent EP 4 082 804 owned by Fujifilm. After Kodak filed a revocation action at the Central Division Paris, Fujifilm surrendered the patent to the EPO and requested disposal of the action, but the first instance court ordered Fujifilm to bear the costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the cost decision and ordered Kodak to bear the costs at both instances, finding that Kodak had unnecessarily initiated the revocation proceedings without first giving Fujifilm an opportunity to surrender the patent.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH
Appeal
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning a withdrawal of appeal and a request for reimbursement of court fees. The underlying infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 201 740 had been dismissed by the Local Division Hamburg on 19 February 2025. After Lionra filed an appeal, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly informed the court that the oral hearing should not proceed. Lionra requested withdrawal of its appeal and reimbursement of 20% of the appeal-stage court fees, with Cisco consenting and withdrawing its cross-appeal in the alternative.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of three appeal proceedings and reimbursement of court fees. The appellants (Shenzhen Transsion group companies and related entities) had appealed an order of the Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents in the 4G LTE and 5G NR technology field. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals with Ericsson's consent, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendant, BAG Diagnostics GmbH, requested that certain information contained in its pleadings and an annexed document be treated as confidential. The court granted the request, classifying the grey-marked information in the defendant's brief of 29 June 2026 and Annex S 1 as confidential, while noting that any future requests for third-party access to the file would require a case-by-case balancing of interests under Rule 262.6 RoP.
Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
This is a rectification order issued by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Milan, concerning patent EP 3 519 207 B1 ('motorcycles tyre'). Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. sought rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a prior decision dated 26 May 2026, which erroneously stated that Pirelli had filed an opt-out declaration on 30 June 2023 and later withdrawn it on 26 November 2024. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from the prior decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport France SASU and Others
This case concerns an application for the correction of the Statement of Appeal and the register in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. AIM Sport Development AG had filed an appeal against an order of the Helsinki Local Division dismissing its infringement action and provisional measures application against multiple TGI entities, but mistakenly included TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a respondent. The Court found this to be an obvious error and ordered the deletion of TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited from the Statement of Appeal and from the register.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
ORDER
Emboline, Inc., Santa Cruz, United States, Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbB, Munich, Germany and v.AorticLab srl, Samone, Italy, law of the law firm André Roland, Lausanne, Switzerland
ORDER
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of appeals and reimbursement of court fees. The appellants (Shenzhen Transsion group companies and related entities) had appealed an order of the Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents in 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. After the parties reached a settlement, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the three appeals with Ericsson's consent, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000).
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) filed by Shenzhen Transsion group companies against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures application in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. Ericsson consented to the withdrawal following a settlement between the parties, and the Court ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
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 (Benelux), and Acer Computer France
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP2304723. The Claimant, Fraunhofer, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP directing a third party (the administrator of the Opus standard patent pool) to produce comparable license agreements to support its response to the Defendants' FRAND defense. With the unanimous consent of the Defendants and the third party, the Court granted the production request subject to a strict 'Highly Confidential Information' confidentiality regime.
23 February 2026 v.Respondent
Order
26 February 2026 v.Respondent
Order
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.