Electronics — European UPC Patent Cases
329 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 11 · 329 total
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited
In this appellate decision, the UPC addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the patent's scope while issuing a significant injunction requiring Belkin to recall and destroy infringing products. Crucially, the ruling provided detailed guidance on liability, particularly limiting the personal responsibility of company directors unless they actively participate in or knowingly facilitate infringement.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and 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 core infringement finding, ordering Belkin to recall and destroy infringing products under Art. 64 EPGÜ. Crucially, the ruling provided significant guidance on interpreting 'offering' in commercial contexts and established clear legal boundaries regarding the liability of corporate directors for patent infringement.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this provisional measures case, Centripetal Limited sought a Saisie order to monitor Palo Alto Networks' network security solution for potential infringement of EP 3 281 580. Although the Court of Appeal had previously allowed an ex-parte hearing and referred the matter back, the CFI ultimately revoked the Saisie order and rejected the application for preserving evidence. The court emphasized its right to review provisional measures based on new facts, even after a referral from the CoA.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In a significant decision regarding patent scope, the UPC Board of Appeal invalidated key claims of EP 3 926 698. The core finding centered on the doctrine of impermissible expansion, holding that a claim cannot extend beyond what was clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application documents. This ruling reinforces strict interpretation requirements for divisional applications, emphasizing that the scope must be traceable to both the initial filing and the parent PCT application. For patent practitioners, this case serves as a strong reminder of the critical importance of precise drafting and disclosure during the prosecution phase.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request for drastic penalties following an attempted evidence seizure (Saisie). The court confirmed that while the Applicant sought monitoring of Palo Alto Networks' network security solution, the Defendant was not found to be in breach. The core legal principle established is that inspection orders are strictly limited to what exists at the specified premises; they cannot compel a defendant to actively set up or procure non-present systems or documentation.
expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In this UPC appeal, expert klein GmbH successfully challenged the validity of EP 3 926 698 held by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The court ruled that Claim 1 was invalid because it contained an impermissible extension of subject matter. Specifically, features not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application or PCT filing were deemed outside the scope of protection. This decision reinforces strict interpretation principles regarding claim scope derived from initial patent disclosures, a critical point for IP strategy.
Washtower IP B.V. v.Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision is a purely procedural order granting an extension of time to the Appellants (defendants from the CFI proceedings). The Appellants requested more time to prepare their grounds of appeal due to professional constraints, including mandatory attendance at an EPO hearing. The Court granted a three-working-day extension, emphasizing the principles of due process while ensuring the Respondents' interests were secured by the enforceability of the original order.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal admitted Apple Inc. as an intervener in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings between Ericsson and ASUS/Arvato. The core issue was whether Apple had sufficient legal interest to participate in appeals concerning the confidentiality regime for sensitive license agreements. The court affirmed that intervention is possible even when the matter relates to interim procedural orders, provided a direct legal interest can be demonstrated. This decision clarifies the scope of 'legal interest' under UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), setting a precedent for how third parties can participate in complex litigation concerning trade secrets and confidential information.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application by Apple Inc. to intervene in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings between Ericsson and ASUS/Arvato. The court ruled that Apple possessed a legal interest, allowing its admission as an intervener supporting Ericsson's request for a stricter 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the scope of intervention under UPC Rules of Procedure, confirming that interests in interim orders are sufficient grounds for participation.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE. LTD.
In a case involving TP-LINK and Atlas Global Technologies, the Düsseldorf Local Court issued an order suspending the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 353 901 and EP 3 186 937. The suspension was reached by mutual agreement between all parties involved in the litigation. This procedural step allows both sides to pause the UPC action while awaiting final decisions from the European Patent Office (EPO) or the conclusion of opposition appeals.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company and associated entities (including BAMTech LLC)
In a procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate an infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings against The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates. The case also includes a counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 080 349. By combining both claims, the Court aims for judicial efficiency, ensuring that any determination of patent validity is consistent with the subsequent assessment of infringement. This early decision sets the procedural framework for the complex dispute involving digital streaming technologies.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a motion for disclosure of license agreements in an ongoing infringement and FRAND dispute between Huawei and MediaTek. The court partially granted the respondent's request, compelling the claimant (Huawei) to submit specific relevant licensing contracts. However, the court rejected broader demands for disclosing all related contractual amendments and supplementary agreements. This ruling underscores the Court's careful balancing act between ensuring full transparency in SEP disputes and protecting confidential business information.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In this UPC case concerning a semiconductor patent, the court addressed a critical procedural issue: security for costs. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant, a non-practicing entity structured as a licensing company, should provide financial guarantees to cover potential legal expenses. The Court rejected the Claimant's arguments regarding its startup status and co-working space operations, upholding the requirement for security. This decision reinforces the UPC's strict stance on ensuring procedural fairness and cost recovery in infringement actions.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order from Düsseldorf Local Chamber, the court addressed the claimant's attempts to introduce late amendments to the scope of patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The claimant sought permission to modify its claims based on new arguments raised by the defendant in a counterclaim for revocation. However, the court rejected these applications, emphasizing that merely claiming 'surprise' is insufficient justification. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements under the UPC Rules of Procedure (R. 30.2 VerfO), requiring applicants to demonstrate a clear link between the opponent's arguments and the necessity of the late claim amendments. This decision serves as a strong warning against using procedural maneuvers to circumvent established timelines in patent litigation.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Chamber addressed disputes over the scope and timing of submissions in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 2 624 031 B1. The respondent sought to exclude large sections of the claimant's pleadings, arguing they were untimely or irrelevant to the patent validity challenge. Conversely, the claimant requested permission to introduce further arguments regarding claim waivers relevant to the infringement case. The court rejected all procedural motions, maintaining strict adherence to the UPC Rules of Procedure.
Eyesmatch Ltd v.Microsoft Corp.
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing an infringement action when parties reach a settlement outside of court. Eyesmatch Ltd withdrew its claim against Microsoft Corp., and the Court formally closed the proceedings. The ruling highlights that mutual agreement between parties can supersede standard cost determination procedures, provided all necessary declarations are made.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this preliminary injunction case, Huawei sought protection for technical information disclosed by MediaTek in its counterclaim regarding chip functionality and encoding algorithms. The court granted confidentiality status to these specific technical documents, recognizing their sensitive nature despite the claimant's arguments that they were merely 'negative facts.' However, the request to protect a witness's name was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of risk. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to balance proprietary interests against procedural needs in complex technology disputes.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Ecovacs Home Service Robotics Co.,Ltd.
In this procedural order concerning a patent infringement case involving Ecovacs and Papst Licensing, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for deadline extensions by one of the defendants. The court ultimately rejected the motion, finding that the defendant's primary motivation was procedural simplification rather than an urgent need to prepare its defense. This decision highlights the Court's focus on balancing procedural efficiency with the claimant's interests in maintaining timely proceedings.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving HMD Global Oy and Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. The Court ruled in favor of HMD Global, granting its request to change the court language from German to English (the patent grant language). The ruling underscores the importance of considering the defendant's operational needs and ability to coordinate internally when balancing fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural order, the UPC granted Microsoft Corporation's request to keep detailed legal invoices and billing information confidential during infringement proceedings against Suinno Mobile. The court found that this data, which details hours spent and fees paid, constitutes highly sensitive business information revealing corporate strategy and financial commitment. While granting confidentiality access only to specific counsel, the Court declined to impose a fixed penalty for non-compliance.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
Ecovacs Robotics sought provisional measures—specifically an inspection and evidence preservation order—against Roborock (HK) in the UPC, alleging infringement of its robot localization patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The claimant argued that Roborock's vacuum cleaners utilized the patented technology. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain urgent evidence preservation orders in UPC proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC costs case, the court addressed a request by MediaTek Germany GmbH for Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. to provide security due to its non-EU domicile. While acknowledging enforcement difficulties against Chinese entities, the Local Chamber of Mannheim ultimately ruled that security was necessary. Crucially, the court reduced the demanded amount from €239,000 to €100,000, basing this decision on established cost limits and the complex structure of the litigation involving multiple defendants.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard Development Company sought provisional measures against two defendants regarding the alleged infringement of its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). The Düsseldorf Local Division granted certain provisional orders, notably imposing significant penalty payments on Defendant 2 for manufacturing or importing infringing devices. This decision underscores the UPC's ability to swiftly enforce rights through interim measures while maintaining flexibility regarding subsequent merits proceedings.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In a procedural order concerning solar technology patents, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a stay to both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision was made because the parties are actively negotiating a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding the disputed patent EP 4 372 829. The Court also ensured that if the proceedings resume, all deadlines will be reset, providing procedural certainty while allowing time for commercial resolution.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH; Keysight Technologies, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the allowance of further written pleadings in an infringement action. Centripetal Limited sought to introduce evidence concerning a newly released infringing product (AI Stack) by requesting a discretionary review of the CFI's rejection. The court ultimately denied the request, prioritizing the principle of expeditious proceedings and finding that Centripetal's delay in filing was a relevant factor. This ruling reinforces the strict application of procedural rules within the UPC framework.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the costs allocation in a provisional measures proceeding concerning EP 4 001 835. The core dispute involved whether the application was moot and who should bear the legal costs, particularly regarding Respondent No. 2 (Blankenhorn GmbH). Although the claimant sought to impose costs on Respondent No. 2 due to lack of formal warning, the court found that since both parties agreed the matter was settled, the proceedings were terminated. The court ultimately upheld the imposition of costs on Respondent No. 2 based on principles of equity.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning a patent infringement case, the court addressed a motion by MediaTek Germany GmbH to require cost security from Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering Huawei to deposit €150,000 as security for legal costs. This ruling highlights the UPC's approach to balancing procedural fairness and financial risk when dealing with international parties, particularly those based outside the EU/EEA.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for public access to confidential case documents in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC and TCL. Despite the underlying claims being withdrawn by the parties, the Court recognized a general interest in judicial transparency. The court granted the applicant access to redacted versions of key pleadings and exhibits, setting a precedent for balancing openness with confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B. V., Energy3000 solar GmbH, Thomas Seifert
In a procedural order issued on August 26, 2025, the UPC stayed an infringement action concerning EP 3 297 043 B1. The stay was granted because both the Claimant and several Defendants were engaged in settlement negotiations. Additionally, the Court extended the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence to five months to accommodate the procedural pause. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation where out-of-court settlements are actively being pursued.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm for patent infringement concerning EP 1 552 669. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and had not been properly withdrawn, thus stripping the UPC of jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the formal requirements for withdrawing an opt-out. The ruling confirms that proper registration and adherence to procedural rules are sufficient, even without explicit proof of a power of attorney from the proprietor.
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.