technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 12 of 58 · 1,714 total
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought leave to appeal a cost decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) dated 6 November 2025, which ordered it to pay EUR 350,000 in costs to Microsoft Corporation following the early termination of an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 671 173. Suinno requested a reduction of the awarded costs to EUR 137,815.80. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding that the awarded amount was proportionate within the applicable ceiling of EUR 600,000 and that the judge-rapporteur had conducted a thorough and detailed assessment of the recoverable costs.
Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of an application for rehearing filed by Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited against Syngenta Limited concerning patent EP 2 152 073. Both parties jointly requested withdrawal following settlement discussions, and the court ordered a 60% reimbursement of the 2,500 € court fee (1,500 €) to Sumi while dismissing the remainder of their requests, including the request for a full waiver of fees.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 905 730. The Defendants (Samsung entities) filed requests to produce their own licence agreement with a third party and to file further written submissions regarding new developments in licence negotiations and their own third-party licence agreements. The court dismissed these requests as belated, holding that the front-loaded procedure required the Defendants to make such submissions and production requests at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et. al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 against multiple defendants. On 16 December 2025, the claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, with each party bearing its own costs and seeking reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 11,400) to the claimant.
Valéo Systèmes d’Essuyages v.Robert Bosch Doo Bograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 Division Centrale de Paris UPC_CFI_809/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23/12/2025 DEMANDEURS ROBERT BOSCH GmbH (Partie à la procédure au principal - Défendeur) 1 Robert-Bosch Platz 70839 GERLINGEN – DEUTSCHL
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning the withdrawal of an appeal and reimbursement of court fees. Both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw the appeal before the Statement of Response was lodged, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to the appellant, Lindal Dispenser GmbH.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et. al.
This case concerned an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust regarding European Patent EP 2 903 267 against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings, INFINIX Mobility, TECNO Mobile, and several European distributors. On December 16, 2025, the plaintiff filed a request to withdraw the action against all defendants, which was consented to by defendants 1-4 and 6-8, while defendant 5 (ASD SAS) did not appear. The Mannheim Local Chamber allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, set the dispute value at EUR 1,500,000, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees (EUR 11,400) to the plaintiff.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP (applicant) in Insulet Corporation v.EOFLow Co., Ltd.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP applied to the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court for access to written pleadings and evidence in the concluded proceedings Insulet Corporation v. EOFLow Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_768/2024) concerning EP 4 201 327. Both Insulet and EOFLow opposed the request, arguing lack of standing, purely commercial interest, confidentiality protections, GDPR data protection, and copyright concerns. The Court of Appeal granted access to Insulet's Statement of Appeal and a redacted version of EOFLow's Statement of Response, finding that a law firm qualifies as a member of the public and that the applicant's interest in understanding the court's decision was a legitimate general interest.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et. al. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court confirmed an ex-parte order that prohibited Amazon entities from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court aimed at blocking InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The court rejected Amazon's application to review the order, finding that InterDigital's RAND declaration to the ITU-T did not give Amazon a contractual right to an interim license enforceable in the UK, and that the UPC's jurisdiction over European patents in its territory had to be respected.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA a. o.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 353 901, in which Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed a patent infringement action against three Vantiva entities, and the Vantiva defendants filed a nullity counterclaim against Atlas Global Technologies GmbH and Atlas Global Technologies LLC. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the main action and the defendants withdrew the counterclaim, with both sides consenting to the respective withdrawals. The parties agreed on cost allocation and requested the court to formally terminate the proceedings and order a partial refund of court fees.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France
Viatris Santé appealed a procedural order from the Paris Local Division that had disregarded certain late-filed exhibits from its rejoinder in provisional measures proceedings brought by Merz. However, the Paris Local Division subsequently issued a final order rejecting Merz's application for provisional measures entirely, rendering Viatris's procedural appeal devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal disposed of the appeal under R. 360 RoP, noting that Viatris could still seek admission of the exhibits in Merz's separate appeal against the final order.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 593 025 B1, which was executed at the Defendant's booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf. After the expert delivered its detailed description, the Defendant had not logged into the CMS despite having received an access code, preventing it from commenting on confidentiality interests. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the unredacted detailed description to the Applicant, lifting the confidentiality order, as the Defendant bore the responsibility to appoint a UPC representative to access the CMS.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The court held that security for costs can only be ordered against the applicant (the party initiating the proceedings), not in their favor. In appeal proceedings, only the respondent on appeal may request security for costs, as the appellant is the party who initiates the appeal. The case involves an appeal by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd against a first instance decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf finding patent infringement of EP 2 778 423.
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sued Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for direct and indirect infringement of the German and French parts of European Patent No. EP 3 652 914 B1, relating to methods and systems for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows. Palo Alto Networks counterclaimed for revocation, challenging sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The Mannheim Local Division found the counterclaim for revocation well-founded, revoked the patent entirely in France and Germany, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action, ordering Centripetal to bear the costs.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Digitally signed by Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Date: 2025.12.19 12:12:26 +01'00' Rian Kalden Date: 2025.12.19 12:21:41 +01'00' Digitally signed by Åsa Ingeborg Simonsson Date: 2025.12.19 12:39:21 +01'00'
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for preservation of evidence and inspection under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 RoP regarding European patent EP 2 593 025 B1. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the Applicant because the Defendant, despite receiving a CMS access code at the time of service on 18 November 2025, never logged into the CMS through a UPC representative, thereby forfeiting its opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH a.o.
GXD-Bio Corporation, the registered owner of European Patent EP 3 346 403 concerning a method for quantifying gene expression in FFPE breast cancer tissue samples using OAZ1 as an endogenous reference gene, sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for patent infringement relating to the EndoPredict test. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and GXD-Bio sought to amend the patent via three auxiliary claim requests. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent, dismissed the amendment application, and dismissed the infringement action, finding that the EndoPredict test did not infringe because it uses three reference genes (CALM2, OAZ1, and RPL37A) for normalization rather than OAZ1 alone as required by claim 1.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB, Romania Xiaomi Communi
Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Digitally signed by Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Date: 2025.12.19 12:11:06 +01'00' Rian Kalden Date: 2025.12.19 12:21:08 +01'00' Digitally signed by Åsa Ingeborg Simonsson Date: 2025.12.19 12:37:23 +01'00'
Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendant (HMD Global Oy) for the disclosure of licensing agreements cited by the Claimant (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) in its Statement of Claim and pre-trial negotiations, in two related infringement actions concerning European Patents EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 609 590. The Defendant argued that EU antitrust law requires the Claimant to behave transparently in license negotiations and to disclose relevant MPEG-4/AAC standard license agreements, including a bilateral agreement with a third party that allegedly gives rise to patent exhaustion. The Claimant partially agreed to submit its only currently in-force bilateral AAC patent license agreement, subject to confidentiality constraints, while challenging the broader request for disclosure of five historical license agreements with third parties.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This case concerns an application by Roborock (HK) Limited for review of an ex-parte inspection and evidence preservation order concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1, owned by Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber found that Ecovacs's presentation of facts for the ex-parte order was incomplete and potentially misleading, thereby violating Rule 192.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The court held that such a breach renders the order unlawful in its entirety, as ex-parte orders depend entirely on the applicant's truthful and complete submissions.
DOCKET NAVIGATOR (applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
Docket Navigator, a US-based patent litigation intelligence platform, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded UPC Court of Appeal proceedings between Syngenta and Sumi Agro, intending to make these documents available to its subscribers. Both Sumi Agro and Syngenta objected, citing copyright concerns, pending rehearing proceedings, and the commercial nature of Docket Navigator's platform. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that copyright is not a general interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA and that granting access to a company intending to redistribute documents to subscribers would compromise the proper conduct of proceedings.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. a. o.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. sought provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, a patent relating to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants, with Defendant 1 having reached a settlement and not defending against most motions, and Defendant 2 having failed to file any objection despite being served through the Chinese Central Authority.
Polidoros S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. et.al.
Polidoro S.p.a., the registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 037 175 relating to a premixed burner (especially for condensation boilers), sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and its parent company NV Bekaert SA for alleged patent infringement. The patent was upheld in limited form following opposition proceedings, with the opposition decision published on 27 November 2024. The claimant sought injunctive relief, recall/removal, destruction, information, damages, and publication of the decision across several UPCA contracting member states including Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Portugal.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order concerns a revocation action and counterclaim for infringement related to European Patent EP3812870 between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (Claimant) and Belparts Group N.V. (Defendant). The central issue addressed is IMI's request for Belparts to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 500,000 under Rule 158.1 RoP, based on alleged economic vulnerability. Belparts opposes the request, arguing that defendants are not required to provide security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and that its financial situation, supported by its patent portfolio and positive annual accounts, demonstrates it is not economically vulnerable.
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 is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning a file inspection request under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. TP-Link sought access to certain filings and annexes submitted by Huawei and Netgear in infringement proceedings before the Local Division Munich involving EP 3 678 321, arguing a legitimate interest because Huawei was suing TP-Link for infringement of the same patent. Netgear and Huawei opposed the request, seeking its full rejection or, alternatively, limiting access to fully redacted versions of the documents.
XXX v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. / MicroTech Medical (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd., et al.
1 UPC_CFI_1262/2025 UPC_CFI_ 830/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division The Hague delivered on 17/12/2025 concerning: access to file (R. 262.1(b)) Date of receipt of Application : 22/10/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) (Applicant) -
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an infringement action on December 16, 2024 against two defendants concerning European Patent EP 4 240 194, alleging that products Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX (and their Plus, Pro, and Pro Max variants) infringed the patent. While service was successfully completed against the Hong Kong defendant on May 29, 2025, service against the Shenzhen defendant failed twice because the Chinese central authority rejected the documents due to the naming convention used for Hong Kong. The Milan Local Division addressed whether Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention applies in the UPC system, concluding that it is entirely applicable regardless of any additional requirements for service within each Member State.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.Reddy Pharma SAS a.o.
This case concerned European Patent 2,493,466, held by Sanofi SA, relating to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer. Sanofi filed infringement actions against STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva entities for marketing generic versions of its JEVTANA product, while the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs.
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
The defendants applied under Rule 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (established in Taiwan), to provide security for costs of the proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 346 616. The Local Division Munich held that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, as neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provides certainty for such enforcement. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within six weeks, but rejected the request for security concerning a counterclaim for revocation that had not yet been filed.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, in which Canon Kabushiki Kaisha is the Claimant and four entities (three Katun companies and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.) are the Defendants. The order addresses several interim procedural matters, including requests for reimbursement of damages and interim damages, a request for leave to amend the claim under Rule 263 RoP, a request to submit a further pleading under Rule 36 RoP, the contested issue of service on Defendant 3 (Katun Corporation), and the value of dispute. The Defendants declared willingness to drop their contestation of service on Defendant 3 in order to reach an amicable solution, and the Claimant acknowledged that service was no longer contested.
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.