European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 9 of 73 · 2,185 total
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Thomas Misgaiski, Lea Prehn, Dr. Marie v.Sercomm Corporation, 2) SerComm Deutschland GmbH
ORDER
Promosome LLC v.Promosome LLC
Decision
Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA v.Polidoro S.p.a.
Withdrawal (RoP265)
Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA v.Polidoro S.p.a.
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-07-06) under reference UPC_4F034E8470, Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA appeared in dispute with Polidoro S.p.a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG, Poststraße 10, 84378 Dietersburg, Germ v.Patentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte
ORDER
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
Provisional measures
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock Germany GmbH a. o.
Infringement Action
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
Application Rop 333
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
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.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd., v.Roborock Germany GmbH a. o.
This is a preliminary procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The court addressed the claimant Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd.'s request under Rule 190 RoP for production of source code extracts from the defendant (related to Roborock robot vacuum models), as well as a confidentiality request under Rule 262A RoP and a request for extension of time limits under Rule 9.3 RoP. The court held that the Rule 190 RoP request was premature because no specific contested facts existed at the time of submission, and that such requests are intended to produce evidence for substantiated, relevant, and contested facts rather than to investigate unknown facts.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH a. o.
Provisional measures
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited, Itel Mobile Limited, Infinix Mobility Limited, Tekpoint GmbH, IRD Distribuce, S.R.O, x-kom GmbH , NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
Appeal
*** v.AMYCEL, LLC
Generic application
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited, Infinix Mobility Limited, Tekpoint GmbH, IRD Distribuce, S.R.O, x-kom GmbH, NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
Appeal
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited , Infinix Mobility Limited , Tekpoint GmbH , IRD Distribuce, S.R.O , x-kom GmbH , NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
Appeal
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
Counterclaim for revocation
Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH v.Guardant Health, Inc.
Appeal RoP220.1
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of ANCA Europe GmbH in preparation for a main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. Following the execution of the inspection order at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart, the appointed expert prepared a detailed description of the findings. The respondent was given the opportunity to assert confidentiality interests but declined to do so, leading to the release of the unredacted detailed description to the applicant.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited , Infinix Mobility Limited , Tekpoint GmbH , IRD Distribuce, S.R.O , x-kom GmbH , NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This case concerns appeals filed by Shenzhen Transsion and related entities against an order of the Local Division of The Hague dated 27 May 2026, which granted Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures under Rules 262A and 262.2 RoP in three related infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 2 712 236, EP 3 836 631, and EP 3 245 744 in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. The Court of First Instance had ordered a phased confidentiality regime restricting access to sensitive licensing information to external representatives and independent licensing experts, excluding in-house representatives during the first phase. Shenzhen Transsion sought leave to appeal, which was granted by the CFI on 15 June 2026, and the appeals were lodged on 24 June 2026, requesting the Court of Appeal to set aside the impugned order.
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.
Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH v.Guardant Health, Inc.
This is a Final Order from the Court of Appeal concerning a request for provisional measures filed by Guardant Health, Inc. against four Sophia Genetics entities (SA, SAS, SRL, and GmbH). The order addresses multiple legal issues including urgency in the context of multiple patents, the patent holder's obligation to investigate potential infringements, and cost allocation following the withdrawal of the application. The Court of Appeal provided headnotes on the principles governing urgency, the duty to investigate, and the allocation of costs when an application is withdrawn.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
This case concerns an application by IPG Laser to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, which had found infringement of EP 2 951 625 and dismissed IPG Laser's counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (€21,145) to IPG Laser, while finding that no cost decision was required.
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH v.Moderna Inc. et al
Infringement Action
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
Application Rop 265
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH v.Moderna Inc. et al
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH filed infringement proceedings against multiple Moderna entities before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) regarding EP4108769, which relates to methods of producing and purifying RNA using tangential flow filtration (TFF). Alongside the main infringement action, CureVac filed a Rule 190 RoP application seeking an order compelling Moderna to produce confidential technical evidence (CTDs and technical data sheets) to demonstrate infringement. The court
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision concerning an application by IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG (now trading as IPG Photonics GmbH & Co. KG) to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 951 625. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals, finding that TRUMPF Laser UK Limited had no legitimate interest in a court decision since the appeal had not yet been formally served. IPG Laser had filed the appeal solely to preserve the statutory deadline and did not intend to pursue it substantively.
ParTec AG v.Lenovo Global Technology Germany GmbH, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, and Lenovo Group Limited
ParTec AG, proprietor of EP 3 743 812 B1 concerning dynamic allocation of heterogeneous compute resources, sought provisional measures against three Lenovo entities alleging indirect infringement through an NVIDIA-integrated stack featuring the Expert Parallel Load Balancer (EPLB). The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the application, holding that ParTec failed to provide a detailed and substantiated account of the relevant market situation prior to the entry of the allegedly infringing product, and that granting provisional measures would alter rather than preserve the status quo. The Applicant was ordered to bear the costs, and the value in dispute was set at EUR 1,000,000.
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Nera Innovations Ltd.
Other
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Nera Innovations Ltd.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning the admissibility of certain documents and arguments in cross-appeals between Nera Innovations Ltd. and several Xiaomi entities regarding European Patent EP 2 642 632. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action filed by Nera against Xiaomi before the Local Division Hamburg, along with Xiaomi's counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The order addresses procedural matters arising from the appeal proceedings, including the handling of auxiliary requests and prior art citations raised by Xiaomi in its invalidity attacks.
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
Appeal RoP220.1
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.