Electronics — European UPC Patent Cases
329 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 11 · 329 total
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
In this UPC decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for an ex-parte order concerning the inspection and preservation of evidence related to robot localization technology. The court ultimately revoked the existing provisional measure because the applicant's submission was deemed incomplete and misleading regarding the core facts. This ruling serves as a strong warning to applicants seeking urgent interim relief that procedural integrity is paramount, especially when relying on ex-parte proceedings.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order addressed a dispute over evidence disclosure in an ongoing patent infringement and FRAND assessment case concerning MPEG-4/AAC technology. The Defendant sought access to the Claimant's confidential licensing agreements with third parties to assess potential antitrust issues (FRAND compliance). The UPC Court partially granted the request, rejecting the production of external documents but compelling the Claimant to submit its own bilateral license agreement under stringent confidentiality protocols.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding document access in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings involving Huawei and TP-Link concerning patent EP 3 678 321. TP-Link sought access to confidential documents, which the Local Division partially granted with a deadline. Huawei appealed this order, arguing against the disclosure. The Board of Appeal ultimately granted suspensive effect to Huawei's appeal, effectively halting the document disclosure until further review.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party intervenor (Streithelfer) when the main party withdraws their appeal. The case involved Strabag and Swarco, with Chainzone intervening to support Strabag's position regarding patent EP 2 643 717. When Strabag settled out of court and withdrew its appeal, the UPC ruled that Chainzone’s intervention became legally moot. This decision clarifies strict rules governing third-party involvement in appellate proceedings.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party assisting party (Streithelfer) when the main supported party withdraws their appeal. Chainzone, acting as an assistant to Strabag, sought to continue its own infringement appeal against Swarco. However, because Strabag reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew its appeal, the court ruled that Chainzone's independent legal standing was lost. Consequently, Chainzone's appeal was dismissed without subject matter.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Brussels stayed a Preliminary Objection raised by Yealink regarding its territorial competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. The Court recognized that the exact same issue is currently pending before the UPC Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_317/2025). This decision ensures procedural economy and prevents contradictory findings between the first instance and appellate courts. Practitioners should note how the UPC manages overlapping jurisdictional challenges across different court levels.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha to submit further evidence regarding additional infringing products found during a late test purchase. The Court rejected the Claimant's attempt to introduce new arguments concerning these additional model numbers, citing principles of due process and procedural economy. The ruling stressed that evidence should be presented without delay when relevant deadlines are approaching, especially if the subject matter is materially identical to what has already been pleaded.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc, TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Entreprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V, TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by TP-Link and Lianzhou to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving Huawei. The court balanced the interests of both parties, concluding that the Defendants' structural disadvantage in preparing their defense outweighed the Claimant's preference for the local language. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to procedural fairness and efficiency in complex international disputes.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 850 660, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf granted an extension of time periods requested by Micron Semiconductor and its affiliates. The defendants argued that the sheer volume of technical evidence (approximately 3,000 pages) submitted by Yangtze Memory Technologies required more time for analysis, especially considering potential prior use rights. The Court agreed, emphasizing the need to afford defendants a sufficient right to be heard while ensuring effective case management across multiple parallel proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent (EP 3 223 320). The central dispute revolved around whether the patent claims represented an impermissible expansion beyond the disclosure in the original international application. While the court discussed principles regarding translation and scope, it ultimately dismissed the appeal. This outcome is significant as it reinforces the validity of patents even when challenges based on improper claim drafting or scope extension are raised.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent, focusing heavily on the interpretation of prior art and the scope of claims. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim did not impermissibly extend beyond the content of the earlier application. This ruling reinforces strict standards for interpreting disclosures in patent applications, particularly when dealing with translations of international filings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In this preliminary objection case, Sun Patent Trust successfully defended its infringement action against Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether the UPC had jurisdiction to rule on FRAND terms alongside patent infringement of an SEP. The Court decisively rejected VIVO's argument, establishing that determining FRAND compliance is not a standalone claim but rather a necessary condition precedent for granting relief in an infringement action under Article 32(1)(a) UPCA. This ruling reinforces the integrated nature of SEP litigation within the UPC framework.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a significant preliminary objection ruling, the UPC rejected Vivo's challenge to its jurisdiction over an SEP infringement case. The core dispute centered on whether seeking a determination of FRAND terms constituted an independent claim outside the scope of the Unified Patent Convention (UPC). The Court clarified that while FRAND assessment is critical for SEPs, it is intrinsically linked to the main action for infringement and does not render the entire claim inadmissible. This decision reinforces the UPC's competence in handling complex SEP litigation involving both infringement and licensing conditions.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This procedural order in UPC_CFI_537/2024 addressed critical issues regarding claim scope and evidence admissibility in an infringement and revocation action. The court allowed extensive amendments to the patent claims, provided they maintained a reasonable structure (two strains of auxiliary requests). Furthermore, it admitted new prior art documents introduced by both sides, ensuring that the case can proceed with a comprehensive review of validity and infringement.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V., Solvest Participatie V B.V., Solvest Participatie VI B.V., Solvest Participatie VII B.V., Solvink B.V., De Kleine Beuk B.V., Hemtech d.o.o.
In this preliminary objection case, Honeywell challenged jurisdictional and competence arguments raised by multiple defendants against its infringement suit concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Local Division Mannheim rejected all objections, clarifying key aspects of UPC jurisdiction. The court held that the requirements for local division competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA are met without needing an extra 'connection,' and affirmed that liability can extend to instigators even if they are not domiciled in the EU.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing a patent infringement action when parties reach an out-of-court settlement. The Court permitted Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong to withdraw its claim against LONGi Solar and related entities, provided no party had a legitimate interest in the merits of the case. Furthermore, the Claimant was granted reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding alleged infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The court granted a preliminary injunction and imposed significant penalty payments, demonstrating the immediate enforcement power available under the UPC system for interim relief. This case underscores the importance of timely action when seeking protection against counterfeit or infringing components in the fast-moving printer cartridge market.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures against a Chinese defendant, the court addressed the critical issue of service failure under international conventions. Despite official notification from Chinese authorities that the company did not exist at the provided address, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted the applicant's request. The ruling established that if the applicant provides credible evidence verifying the accuracy of the registered address, prior attempts can be deemed good service, ensuring the applicant's urgent legal rights are protected.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's attempt to introduce new claims related to indirect patent infringement outside of the established case management framework. The Court strictly enforced procedural rules, finding that these new requests constituted an impermissible amendment to the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance for patentees to adhere rigorously to the UPC's procedural timetable and filing requirements when seeking expanded relief.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH
In this procedural case, Dolby International AB initiated proceedings against Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş regarding European Patent EP 3 605 534. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order cancelling the previously scheduled oral hearing due to unforeseen circumstances involving the defendants' legal representation. A new date for the proceedings has been tentatively set for February 4, 2026.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a combined infringement and revocation action against Vibrantz GmbH concerning the European Patent EP 3 215 288, which covers metal sintering preparations used in electronics. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the infringement claim and rejected all other related applications. Despite the loss for the claimant, the decision provided important commentary on how national law governs the binding effect of prior national revocation judgments within the UPC framework.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation
In this UPC case, Total Semiconductor sued Texas Instruments for infringing a patent related to intelligent interrupt distribution in multiprocessor systems. The court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. While the decision contained important procedural rulings regarding how claimants must substantiate disputed features and limitations on late amendments during oral hearings, it did not reach a definitive finding of infringement or validity.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the patent and ordered Belkin to recall, remove, and destroy infringing products. Crucially, the ruling provided significant legal guidance on interpreting 'offering' in commercial contexts and defined the specific conditions under which company directors can be held liable for patent infringement.
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.