technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 10 of 51 · 1,511 total
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited o. a.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, in which the Claimant Ona Patents SL sought review of a case management order regarding the scheduling of an interim conference. The Claimant argued that an interim conference was needed to discuss the relevance of arguments from related proceedings against other defendants that had been settled. The court dismissed the request as admissible but unfounded, holding that the decision to hold an interim conference lies within the discretion of the Presiding Judge and that the terminated parallel proceedings are legally independent of the present case.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.Vivo Tech GmbH Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_362/2025 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 13/10/2025 concerning the runtime and Preliminary Objection APPLICANTS 1) Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL Calle Orense 58, Planta 12 C 28020 - Madrid – ES 2) 3) Vivo
Motorola Mobility LLC v.1) ASUSTek Computer Inc 2) ASUS Computer GmbH 3) ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 3 972 309, brought an infringement action against ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited before the Local Chamber Munich. The patent concerns a method and apparatus for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting the security keys used in user equipment communicating with two cell groups. The defendants filed a counterclaim. The case was heard orally on July 9, 2025, and the decision was issued on October 10, 2025, by a panel of four judges.
WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna v.Vilpe Oy
A revocation action was brought by WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna against VILPE OY concerning European patent EP 2 649 380. An interim conference was held on 9 October 2025 before the judge-rapporteur, who issued an order on 10 October 2025 setting out the procedural decisions taken. Key rulings included deeming the Claimant's Rejoinder timely, rejecting the Claimant's request to forgo translations of documents D1, D2, and D4, admitting a warning letter into the proceedings, setting the case value at EUR 630,000, and confirming the oral hearing for 3 December 2025.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case concerns European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1, relating to metal sintering preparations, which is in force in Germany, France, Italy, and Romania. Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG filed an infringement action against Vibrantz GmbH, while Vibrantz filed a counterclaim for revocation along with applications for patent amendment and a decision on an absolute procedural bar. The Local Chamber Munich addressed the binding effect of a final national revocation judgment under Art. 24.1(e) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, holding that in the absence of specific UPCA regulations, national law governs this question, and also examined private prior use rights in Germany, France, Italy, and Romania.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products
1. Infringement action about shelf dividers. Patent valid and infringed. Indirect infringement. Long-arm jurisdiction. 2. Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement with revised product held inadmissible. There was no assertion of infringement prior to instituting the counterclaim nor had defendant applied in writing for an acknowledgement as meant in R. 61.1 RoP. Such assertion may not be deduced from the mere fact that the patent was invoked with respect to a different product. Rel
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Inc. et. al.
Total Semiconductor, LLC, a Texas-based licensing company that acquired European Patent EP 2 746 957 B1 from NXP B.V., sued Texas Instruments Incorporation and its German and EMEA sales subsidiaries for alleged infringement of the patent, which relates to an intelligent interrupt distributor in a multiprocessor system. The claimant sought injunctive relief, declarations of infringement, recall/removal, destruction, information communication, and a declaration of liability for damages in France and Germany. The Local Division Mannheim addressed issues including the required degree of substantiation for disputed patent features, the admissibility of new indirect infringement arguments raised for the first time at oral hearing, and the proper invocation of general common knowledge in inventive step assessments.
Hypertherm Inc. v.Tec.Mo. s.r.l.
1 di 3 Divisione Locale di Milano UPC CFI n. 226/2025 ordinanza ex rule 360 RoP depositata il 7.10.2025 ATTORE Hypertherm Inc. CONVENUTO Tec.Mo. s.r.l. ORGANO DECIDENTE Su indicazione del judge-rapporteur (v. rule 363 RoP), la presente ordinanza è adottata dal Panel nella segu
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
The Local Division Brussels combined an infringement action brought by CRETES NV against HYLER BV with a validity counterclaim brought by HYLER BV against CRETES NV concerning European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152. Following a Court-ordered mediation process under Rule 105(5) RoP, the parties reached a settlement agreement, which they notified to the Registry on 29 August 2025. On 7 October 2025, the Court issued a definitive decision confirming the settlement under Rule 365(1) RoP, keeping its contents confidential under Rule 365.2 RoP, and addressing the reimbursement of court fees under Rules 370(9)(c) and 370(9)(e) RoP.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns appeals by Roku against the rejection of its objections (Einsprüche) by the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the grounds for objection under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure are exhaustive, whether the UPC's jurisdictional framework is compatible with EU law, whether the Administrative Committee could replace London with Milan as a Central Division location, and how court fees apply to multiple appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal upheld the rejection of Roku's objections, finding them inadmissible or unfounded.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH. et. al.
Corning Incorporated filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 296 274 against multiple defendants including Hisense, TCL, and LG entities before the Mannheim Local Division. During the written procedure, Corning requested partial withdrawal of the infringement action against the LG defendants (Defendants 7-9), who in turn requested withdrawal of their counterclaim for revocation. The court permitted both withdrawals, closed the proceedings against the LG defendants, and ordered each side to bear their own costs regarding the withdrawn portions.
Belkin GmbH, ****, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin Limited, **** and **** v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is an appeal decision of the Court of Appeal concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. The court addressed key legal questions including the autonomous interpretation of 'offering' under Article 25(a) of the European Patent Convention Agreement, the liability of managing directors for patent infringement committed by their companies, and the requirements for corrective measures such as recall, removal from distribution channels, and destruction. The decision establishes that offering must be understood in an economic sense as an 'invitatio ad offerendum' and does not require a price indication or actual delivery capability.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH et. al.
Hurom Co., Ltd., the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 028 981 B1 relating to a juice extractor, brought a patent infringement action against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant alleged that slow juicers marketed by the Defendants under the name 'AUTO10' fell within the scope of the patent-in-suit. The proceedings were conducted in English, with oral hearings held on 28 January 2025 and 4 September 2025.
expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The appellants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH (part of the expert retail group), appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of October 10, 2024, which had addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal standard for assessing unallowable extension of subject matter (added matter), particularly in the context of a patent derived from a divisional application.
Hurom v.NUC
Hurom Co., Ltd., the registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1 relating to a juice extractor, brought a patent infringement action against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. before the Local Division Mannheim. Hurom alleged that NUC's slow juicers marketed under the name 'AUTO10' fell within the scope of the patent-in-suit. The proceedings were conducted in English, with oral hearings held on 28 January 2025 and 4 September 2025, and the decision was delivered on 2 October 2025.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 October 2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr Ralph Nack, Dr Niclas Gaj
Expert e-Commerce GmbH, Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The appellants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH (part of the expert retail group), appealed against the decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of October 10, 2024, which had addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_764/2024 and UPC_CoA_774/2024) were heard together at an oral hearing on July 11, 2025, with Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. intervening in support of Viosys.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samung Electronics Co. Ltd. a.o.
This is a rectification order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf on 2 October 2025 in patent infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 110 072 B1. The court, on its own motion, corrected paragraph 6 of its earlier order dated 29 September 2025 to fix a clerical error and a calculation error, directing the Registrar to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees paid, amounting to €14,400.
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 Oktober 2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr Ralph Nack,
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG a.o. v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 962 668 B1. The order addresses the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, restricting access to certain unredacted documents containing trade secrets. The applicants (Roche entities) and respondents (Menarini entities) agreed on the classification of the information as confidential and on the circle of persons authorized to access it on the applicants' side.
Robert Bosch GmbH v.Grizzly Tools et. al.
Robert Bosch GmbH filed an infringement action against Grizzly Tools and three Lidl entities concerning European Patent EP 3 030 383 B1, asserting infringement in Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Poland. The defendants filed separate objections under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure challenging the court's jurisdiction over non-UPC contracting member states (Poland, Spain, and the UK). The Mannheim Local Chamber rejected the objections, holding that establishing international jurisdiction under Article 4(1) and Article 63(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation requires only demonstrating that the defendant has its seat in an EU member state of the court seized, and that under Article 71b(1) Brussels Ia, it suffices to show the seat is in one of the states establishing the common court.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., Luxendo GmbH, Bruker Nederland B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Bruker's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's decision to reimburse only 60% of the court fees paid for Bruker's application for compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP. The court held that a request to lay open books for the purpose of determining compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP forms part of the separate procedure for the determination of damages governed by Chapter 4 of Part 1 RoP, requiring payment of both a fixed fee and a value-based fee. The court further found that combining a request to establish liability with a request to lay open books does not entitle the applicant to a reduced or no fee.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA Sophia Genetics SAS Sophia Genetics SRL Sophia Genetics GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerning an application for provisional measures filed by Guardant Health, Inc. against four Sophia Genetics entities based on four European patents. The order sets the date for the oral hearing and establishes a procedural timeline for objections and replies.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. a.o.
Infringement proceedings were initiated by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. against Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL concerning EP 4 074 373 before the Hamburg Local Division. The parties subsequently concluded the proceedings by way of a settlement agreement dated 10 September 2025 and jointly requested the Court to confirm the settlement, keep its details confidential, and refrain from issuing a cost decision. The Court confirmed the settlement under Rule 365.1 RoP, ordered that only the redacted version be entered in the register, and declared the decision enforceable as a final decision of the Court.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samung Electronics GmbH a.o.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Following a 30 July 2025 decision that dismissed the infringement action and revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1, the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and the related cost application before the appeal period expired. With the Claimant's consent, the Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear their own costs regarding the counterclaim.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. o.a.
Headwater Research LLC filed a patent infringement action against five Samsung entities before the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European patent EP 3 110 072 B1. Before the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and the proposed cost decision. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, set the value in dispute at €2,000,000, and directed the Registrar to reimburse 60% of the court fees paid.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1, in which Headwater Research LLC had initially brought an infringement action against multiple Samsung entities, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. By decision of 30 July 2025, the Court dismissed the infringement action and revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1. Before the appeal period expired, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action with the Defendants' consent, and the Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA a.o.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division summoning the parties to an oral hearing in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The order sets the hearing date for 27 November 2025 and closes the written procedure by 7 November 2025, with no interim conference currently planned.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. v.Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.
UPC_CFI_897/2025 - 25 September 2025 1 of 11 Local Division The Hague UPC_CFI_ 897/2025 Ex Parte Order Of the Court of first Instance of the UPC issued on 25 September 2025 regarding: the preservation of evidence APPLICANT DATA DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Topaz street, Park
SCANTRUST v.ADVANCED TRACK AND TRACE
1 Division centrale de Paris UPC_CFI_323/2025 Décision au fond de la division centrale du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 25/09/2025 DEMANDEUR SCANTRUST - EPFL Innovation Park PSE-D - CH-1015 - LAUSANNE – CH Représentée par Maî
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.