Mechanical — European UPC Patent Cases
9 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 9 total
CARDO SYSTEMS Ltd. v.SHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
CARDO SYSTEMS Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 4 240 194 relating to a fastening device for head-protective gear, obtained a default judgment against Shenzhen Asmax and Hong Kong Yiheng for infringement of the patent through their Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX products. After the defendants failed to file any defence or enter an appearance despite valid service, the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Local Division) granted injunctive relief, an interim award for damages of €56,000, and an interim award for costs of €28,000, jointly and severally against both defendants.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning EP 3 476 616 (DE and UK designations) relating to lithographic/printing plates. Fujifilm had sued Kodak for patent infringement before the Mannheim Local Division, and Kodak counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance's revocation of the German designation, finding the patent valid and infringed by Kodak's Sonora plates, and granted extensive remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, and damages. For the UK designation, the Court of Appeal dismissed Fujifilm's appeal and held that the condition for Kodak's counterclaim for revocation was not fulfilled.
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
Brita SE obtained an order from the Local Chamber Hamburg on December 9, 2025, against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for infringement of EP 2 131 940 B1, including a cease-and-desist obligation and an information disclosure obligation. After the defendant failed to comply with both obligations and waived its right to challenge the order, Brita sought renewed coercive measures. The court imposed a coercive fine of EUR 97,500 for continued advertising of the infringing embodiment on the defendant's websites and EUR 105,000 for continued non-compliance with the information order, while threatening further daily fines.
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application under Rule 353 RoP seeking rectification of a decision issued on 26.5.2026 in proceedings concerning EP 3 519 207 B1 (motorcycles tyre). Pirelli argued that the decision erroneously stated it had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023, which was later withdrawn on 26.11.2024, when in fact it had never filed any opt-out. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from page 9 of the decision.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning confidentiality requests and a change of language of proceedings in a patent infringement appeal. Fives ECL appealed the first instance decision dismissing its infringement claim against REEL GmbH regarding EP 1 740 740. The Court of Appeal granted a confidentiality order restricting access to certain business information, changed the language of proceedings from German to English, and conditionally approved the addition of a former employee to the confidentiality circle.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a confidentiality request filed by Fives ECL in its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Hamburg. The underlying dispute involves Fives' claim for damages based on alleged infringement of EP 1 740 740 by REEL GmbH, which was dismissed at first instance for insufficient evidence of lost profits and causation. The Court of Appeal provisionally restricted access to certain grey-highlighted information in the appeal brief and newly submitted annexes to REEL's authorized UPC representatives, pending REEL's response to the confidentiality request.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, proprietor of EP 4 240 194 B1 relating to fastening devices for head-protective gear, obtained an ex parte injunction and seizure order against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited on 5 November 2025 during the EICMA motorcycle trade fair in Milan. The respondents applied for review of the order, challenging validity, infringement, and the balance of interests. The Milan Local Division revoked the provisional measures in their entirety, finding no infringement, no urgency, and that Cardo had breached its duty of candour, while ordering Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in interim costs and partially releasing the security deposit.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, Herrn Yong Cao
Evac Oy, a Finnish company, brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf against Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, and Mr. Yong Cao concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1, both relating to vacuum sewer systems. The court addressed the applicability of the five-year limitation period under Article 72 UPCA, holding that it applies only to financial compensation claims and not to injunctive relief, which is forward-looking. The court found infringement of EP 1 840 282 B1 by Defendants 1 and 3, granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, and ordered the defendants to pay damages, with costs split 70/30 in favor of the defendants.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
This case concerns an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for inspection and evidence preservation (Inspektion und Beweissicherung) against ANCA Europe GmbH in connection with European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The inspection was executed at ANCA's trade fair stand at the 'GrindingHub' trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026, and an expert subsequently prepared a detailed description of the findings. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant, as the respondent did not assert any confidentiality interests regarding the information contained therein.
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.