Mechanical — European UPC Patent Cases
108 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 4 · 108 total
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
In this UPC case, Hurom sued NUC Electronics regarding the alleged infringement of a patent covering a specific type of juice extractor. The proceedings were separated due to the pending ECJ decision on related matters. Ultimately, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed the action for the separated part, citing that the dispute was minor in scope and focused primarily on damages rather than immediate market injunctions.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation regarding the respondent's 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell,' citing difficulties in accessing the machine. The UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately dismissed this application. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain provisional measures, even when a main infringement action is pending, emphasizing that procedural requirements must be strictly met.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. sought provisional measures against several defendants regarding the infringement of its washing machine cabinet patent (EP3522755B1). Although the court did not grant the full scope of preliminary relief requested by Washtower, it issued a significant interim award for legal costs totaling EUR 62,600. This decision highlights how UPC proceedings can yield financial benefits even when primary injunctive or declaratory relief is not immediately granted.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handels GmbH (and Johann Windhager, Stefan Windhager)
This UPC decision addresses a complex infringement case involving interlocking metal strips used for garden edging. The court issued significant legal guidance, establishing that merely offering or supplying components designed to assemble easily constitutes direct patent infringement. While the claimant secured an injunction and damages against the main defendant, the overall infringement claim was partially dismissed, highlighting the nuanced application of component supply rules in UPC litigation.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. sought provisional measures against several defendants regarding the patent EP3522755B1 covering ergonomic washing machine cabinets. The court issued an order on September 11, 2025, focusing primarily on costs and interim relief. Although the application for preliminary measures was partially addressed, the ruling established a significant cost award of EUR 62,600 against Defendants 2-5.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This UPC case involved Oerlikon Textile asserting infringement of EP2145848 against Himson Engineering, while Himson counter-sued for revocation. After extensive proceedings, including an Oral Hearing, both parties reached a transactional agreement to terminate the dispute. The Court formally accepted the withdrawal applications under Rule 265 ROP, declaring the case closed and confirming that legal costs would be mutually compensated.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA; IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Belparts Group N.V. sought to consolidate its current infringement action with a parallel counterclaim pending before the Central Division Paris, arguing for consistent application of UPC law. Although IMI consented to the consolidation, the Local Division Munich dismissed the request. The Court found that since the proceedings were lodged in different divisions (Local vs. Central), the statutory requirement under R. 302.3 RoP was not satisfied.
City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v.Maars Holding B.V., Maars Projecten B.V., Maars Partitioning Systems B.V., Maars France
In this UPC case, City Glass sued Maars for infringing its patent covering a unique self-locking glazing system. The Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding that the alleged use of Horizon Products did not constitute infringement under EP 1651838. Crucially, the court also rejected Maars' counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. This decision highlights the high bar for proving both infringement and invalidity in UPC proceedings.
igus GmbH v.Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
igus GmbH initiated an infringement action against Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. concerning its patent EP 3 912 243 B1, which covers compact cable protection conduits for cleanroom applications. The court issued a default judgment confirming the alleged infringement and granting broad injunctions across UPC member states. This case highlights the enforcement mechanisms available in the UPC against non-EU entities operating within the European market.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
In this procedural order, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf addressed the complex interplay between an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning several coffee system patents. The court decided to handle both claims jointly under Article 33(3)(a) EPC, streamlining the proceedings. This early decision was deemed efficient given the moderate technical complexity of the subject matter.
Unspecified v.Essetre Holding spa
In this UPC revocation action, the Court addressed arguments regarding novelty and inventive step for a machine used in machining walls. The core legal discussion centered on claim interpretation, specifically how terms like 'working surface' should be understood within the patent's context. Ultimately, the court rejected the attempt to revoke the patent, maintaining it after incorporating amendments proposed by the defendant.
Husqvarna AB v.POSITEC Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance granted POSITEC Germany GmbH's request to change the language of its infringement case from German to English. The court balanced the arguments, ultimately prioritizing the defendant's position regarding fairness and operational needs over the claimant's preference for the patent grant language. This decision reinforces the importance of considering the practical disadvantages faced by parties when determining procedural language in UPC proceedings.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This UPC Central Division order addresses a revocation action brought by BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH against Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH concerning EP 4 019 790. The court established the procedural framework, setting the value in dispute and confirming the schedule for the oral hearing. While no substantive ruling was made, this order confirms the parties' readiness to proceed with the revocation proceedings.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l.
This interim decision in the Milan Local Division addresses the valuation of a complex patent dispute involving Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against AWM s.r.l. The court was tasked with setting the value for cost assessment purposes, considering both infringement and revocation claims related to high-value mechanical machines. Despite disputes over sales volume and royalty rates, the judge-rapporteur set the value at EUR 2 million for each action, relying on proportionality principles due to a lack of supporting economic data.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH, SSAB Europe Oy
This UPC appellate decision addressed an appeal concerning the allocation of legal costs following the withdrawal of a provisional measures application. The court confirmed that even when a case is closed by withdrawal under R. 265 VerfO, the general rules for separate cost determination (R. 150 ff. VerfO) apply. The appellate panel found no grounds to overturn the initial costs decision, which had already conducted a thorough and reasonable assessment of the incurred expenses.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH initiated revocation proceedings against EP 4 019 790, arguing that the patent lacks novelty and inventive step. Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH defended the patent while simultaneously filing counterclaims seeking to maintain or amend the patent claims. The UPC Central Board has issued a procedural order scheduling an interim hearing to clarify the scope of the dispute, assess its value, and discuss potential settlements.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l.
This interim order in the Progress Maschinen v. Schnell case addressed several key procedural issues ahead of the main oral hearing. The court deferred a decision on the admissibility of a new patent amendment (AR4) to the Panel's assessment during the upcoming hearing. Crucially, the parties were given time to negotiate an agreement on damages and costs before proceeding with the full merits discussion. This order highlights the UPC's focus on procedural efficiency while maintaining flexibility for settlement.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l.
This interim order in the Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v. Schnell s.p.a. case outlines the procedural path forward before the UPC Panel. The court addressed key issues, including the admissibility of a new patent amendment (AR4) and the production of technical evidence. Crucially, the parties were given time to negotiate settlement on infringement value and costs ahead of the scheduled oral hearing.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
In a significant decision, the Munich Local Court dismissed Tiroler Rohre GmbH's infringement claim against SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH regarding driving tips (ram spikes). The court accepted the defendants' technical arguments, specifically that the alleged 'ledge' was not free-standing and that the contact surface was not flat as required by the patent claims. This ruling underscores the importance of precise claim construction in UPC litigation, particularly when dealing with functional or structural limitations.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the claimant sought to amend its damages claim to include profits derived from ancillary sales of sealing material and service contracts related to the allegedly infringing machines. The court addressed the admissibility of this clarification under R. 263 RoP, balancing the need for a front-loaded procedure against the defendant's right to defense. Ultimately, the court permitted the claimant to clarify its request without formal amendment while deferring the final decision on the scope of damages until after the oral hearing.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH initiated a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning European Patent EP 3 655 346 B1, which covers a specialized pressure pack dispenser. Lindal argued the patent lacked industrial application and novelty. The UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action, maintaining the patent as amended by the defendant's auxiliary request. This decision underscores the procedural complexities of UPC litigation, particularly regarding the interplay between invalidity arguments and amendments.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH initiated a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning the pressure pack dispenser patent (EP 3 655 346 B1). The claimant argued for invalidity based on lack of industrial application and novelty. However, the UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action, maintaining the patent as amended by the defendant's auxiliary requests. This decision underscores the procedural complexities within the UPC, particularly concerning claim amendments and the interpretation of patentability requirements.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a challenge by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH against an earlier order issued to preserve evidence and conduct inspections regarding patent EP 3 083 107. The court confirmed its initial ruling, finding that Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG had presented sufficient grounds for the preventive measures. Crucially, the court emphasized that the respondent's deliberate lack of cooperation in providing specific technical details justified the order, even if a direct risk of evidence destruction was not explicitly proven.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a request by Grundfos Holding A/S to correct an earlier ruling against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf accepted the correction, significantly altering the scope of obligations placed on the respondent. Key changes include mandating product recalls for infringing goods and confirming that the respondent must compensate the claimant for all resulting damages. This case highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC to ensure judicial accuracy.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This UPC procedural order in the case of BAUSSMANN v. Raimund Beck Nageltechnik concerns a revocation action against EP 4 019 790. The court has set strict deadlines for both parties to submit their respective pleadings regarding the patent's validity and potential amendments. While no substantive decision was made, this order highlights the procedural rigor of UPC proceedings when dealing with complex issues like amending patents during litigation.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed the logistical challenges of inspecting large agricultural machinery central to an infringement claim. The Court ruled that Article 53(f) UPCA provides a broad scope for evidence gathering, allowing dynamic experiments on-site rather than strictly limited inspections in the courtroom. This ruling is significant as it facilitates complex technical evaluations involving bulky industrial equipment.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Grundfos Holding A/S sued Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. for infringing its patent covering a specialized heating circulation pump unit with electronic switching capabilities. The court found infringement, allowing Grundfos to pursue an injunction and damages against the respondent's sales in Germany, France, and Italy. However, the defendant's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed, highlighting the strict procedural hurdles required for introducing new prior art during litigation.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd.
In a significant procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber addressed the complex litigation involving Evac Oy and multiple defendants regarding vacuum drainage equipment patents. The court formally confirmed a settlement reached between the claimant and three of the five respondents (Respondents 4-6). Crucially, the proceedings against the remaining primary defendants (1, 2, and 3) were allowed to continue, indicating that the core infringement dispute remains active.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Sweden) AB, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS (Danemark) ApS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE LUXEMBOURG S.A., XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl and HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA
ArcelorMittal initiated an infringement action against numerous XPENG-related entities concerning a patent covering coated steel strips and stamped products. However, the claimant subsequently filed an application to withdraw the suit, citing a settlement reached with the defendants. The UPC Court granted the withdrawal request, formally closing the proceedings. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to exit litigation early when settlements are reached.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Henle Baumaschinentechnik GmbH
In a case involving infringement and revocation of EP 3 770 330 B1, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted an extension of deadlines for the claimant. The court recognized that the late provision of evidence by the defendant constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the procedural relief. This decision underscores the UPC's willingness to manage complex litigation timelines when procedural fairness is at stake.
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.