technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 14 of 58 · 1,714 total
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This order, issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on November 26, 2025, concerns European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The applicant, Topsoe A/S, had filed an application for correction of an earlier order dated November 25, 2025, which contained address errors regarding the respondents SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The court corrected the addresses of the respondents and the production site of the first respondent in the operative part of the prior order.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. - Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. Yealink filed a Preliminary Objection under R. 19 RoP challenging the territorial competence of the LD Brussels under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. Because the same territorial competence issue was already the subject of a cross-appeal pending before the UPC Court of Appeal in case UPC_CoA_317/2025, the Court stayed the Preliminary Objection proceedings until the Court of Appeal issues its decision, and set a schedule for post-decision comments.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes on key legal principles relating to claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The judgment establishes guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the standard for sufficiency including functional features, and the methodology for assessing inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles regarding the interpretation of dependent claims, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the sufficiency test for functionally defined claims, and the framework for assessing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, assessing added matter, evaluating sufficiency of disclosure, and the framework for analyzing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The Court of Appeal articulated guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, assessing added matter, evaluating sufficiency including functional features, and the methodology for establishing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes establishing legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The full case facts and parties are not contained in the provided text excerpt, which consists primarily of the headnotes section.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The Court of Appeal articulated legal principles governing how dependent claims inform the interpretation of main claims, the inherent requirements of medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the standard for sufficiency of disclosure including functional features, and the methodology for assessing inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The judgment sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The decision establishes guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter, the test for sufficiency including functional features, and the framework for evaluating inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes addressing key patent law principles including claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The judgment establishes legal guidelines on how dependent claims inform main claim interpretation, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the legal nature of added matter assessment, and the standards for sufficiency and inventive step analysis.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
Topsoe A/S, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, filed an application on November 21, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of the two German respondents, SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, in preparation for a forthcoming main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on November 25, 2025, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure. The patent had been granted on July 5, 2023, without any opposition, and the applicant had withdrawn its previously declared opt-out from the jurisdiction of the court on the same day it filed the application.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The decision sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The headnotes establish that dependent claims only inform main claim interpretation when they provide more specific descriptions of main claim features, that medical use-format claims inherently require therapeutic effectiveness, and that sufficiency must be assessed from the perspective of the skilled person at the filing or priority date.
Meril Italy Srl (Appellant in 464/2024 and Respondent in 530/2024), Meril GmbH (Appellant in 457/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 532/2024 and 27/2025), Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Appellant in 458/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 533/2024 an v.Respondent
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2025-11-25) under reference UPC-000220, Meril Italy Srl (Appellant in 464/2024 and Respondent in 530/2024), Meril GmbH (Appellant in 457/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 532/2024 and 27/2025), Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Appellant in 458/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 533/2024 an appeared in dispute with Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno sought suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP to prevent enforcement of a cost decision (R. 151 RoP) issued by the Central Division (Paris Seat) ordering it to pay €350,000.00 in costs to Microsoft following a default judgment dismissing Suinno's infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal held that while the application was admissible, Suinno failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it had not shown the cost decision was manifestly erroneous. The application for suspensive effect was rejected.
Merz therapeuthics gmbh, Merz pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2025-11-21) under reference UPC-000226, Merz therapeuthics gmbh, Merz pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France appeared in dispute with Viatris Santé concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
UPM-Kymmene Oyi v.International N&H Denmark
This is a procedural order from the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court in a revocation action (UPC 829/2024) brought by UPM-Kymmene Oyj against International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The order, issued by Judge-rapporteur András Kupecz following an interim conference on 21 November 2025, sets the value of the case at EUR 1,000,000, grants the Defendant time to clarify its requests, and confirms the date of the oral hearing for 15 January 2026 in Munich.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
1. When assessing the inventive step from a legal perspective, it should always be borne in mind that it must be avoided that an invention is assessed with knowledge of the invention, i.e. retrospectively. This also applies when common general knowledge is relied upon. Also in such a case, it is usually necessary for the person skilled in the art to have an incentive to arrive at the claimed subject matter based on the state of the art. 2. If the claimant in revocation action decides no
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order on a Rule 36 RoP application by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha seeking permission to submit further written pleadings in its infringement action concerning EP 3 686 683 B1 against Katun Germany GmbH and other Katun entities plus General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. The court permitted Canon to file the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion and a summary of its reasoning, but rejected the request to introduce evidence from an additional test purchase conducted in October 2024, finding the submission unjustifiably delayed and essentially redundant. The written procedure was deemed closed upon expiry of the filing deadline.
Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. and Morello Forni di Morello Marco & C. S.A.S. v.Gastroteam Abbe AB and Marciuliano Attrezzature di Marciuliano Salvatore
This is a default judgment decision concerning European Patent EP 3691454 B1, titled 'Method and apparatus for shaping pizza,' brought by Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. and Morello Forni S.A.S. di Morello Marco & C. against Gastroteam Abbe AB (Sweden) and Salvatore Marciuliano, proprietor of Marciuliano Attrezzature (Italy). The defendants failed to appear in the proceedings, prompting the court to examine the requirements for issuing a default decision under Article 37 UPCS and Rules 277 and 355 RoP. The court analyzed the validity of service of the summons, the principle of non-contestation of specific facts under Rule 171.2 RoP, and the standard of proof required for default judgments.
Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company a.o.
This case concerns European Patent No. 2 449 982 (as referenced in the order) and was filed by Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. against multiple Disney entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The proceedings were registered under case numbers UPC_CFI_87/2025 and UPC_CFI_488/2025. The available text only contains the procedural header identifying the parties, their legal representatives, and the patent in suit, with the substantive content of the order not provided.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. v.Siltronic AG a. o.
This order concerns the scope of disclosure of an expert report obtained during evidence preservation proceedings and the protection of confidential information under Article 58 of the relevant agreement. The applicant, Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd., is the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which relates to saw wires used in semiconductor wafer production. The respondents are Siltronic AG, a silicon wafer manufacturer that purchases saw wires from the applicant, and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG, a logistics company providing storage services. The presiding judge established guiding principles for handling trade secrets, personal data of third parties, and other confidential information when disclosing the expert report to the applicant.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a disposable laparoscopic morcellator, filed an urgent application before the Düsseldorf Local Division for the preservation of evidence and inspection against Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd. The application sought to inspect and analyze the Defendant's 'MORCELLIX' product being exhibited at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, which the Applicant suspected of being a slavish copy of its LiNA Xcise™ product. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and evidence preservation procedure to be carried out by an independent expert at the Defendant's exhibition booth, subject to confidentiality measures.
TP-Link Systems Inc, TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Entreprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V, TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd., v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (TP-Link entities and Lianzhou International) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. concerning European patent EP 3678321. The Defendants argued that English, the language in which the patent was granted, should be used as the language of proceedings for reasons of fairness, citing the strict time constraints of the UPC rules of procedure, the internal working language of the parties, and the need for rapid coordination among the multiple Defendants. Huawei opposed the application and requested its dismissal. The matter was referred to the President of the Court of First Instance under Rule 323 RoP, with the panel of the Local Division Munich consulted.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v.Molecular Instruments, Inc.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. (ACD), a California-based company and proprietor of European patents EP1910572 and EP2500439 relating to RNAscope in situ hybridization (ISH) technology for detecting nucleic acids in individual cells, brought infringement actions against Molecular Instruments, Inc. before the Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance. The patents concern methods of detecting nucleic acids in individual cells and identifying rare cells from large heterogeneous cell populations using multiplex fluorescent and chromogenic ISH assays. The proceedings were heard orally on 2 October 2025, with the panel comprising Presiding Judge Edger Brinkman, legally qualified judge Alima Zana, judge-rapporteur Margot Kokke, and technically qualified judge Michael Alt.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.,
LiNA Medical AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a laparoscopic morcellator, filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Applicant sought measures at the Defendant's exhibition booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, suspecting that the Defendant's exhibited disposable morcellator was a slavish copy of LiNA's Xcise™ product and infringed the patent. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and preservation of evidence procedure to be carried out by an independent expert, subject to confidentiality measures.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 024 099 B1 relating to a cable processing device, filed an application for an order of inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd. The application was filed on November 14, 2025, in preparation for a main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued the order on November 17, 2025, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. a. o.
Leap Tools Inc. filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 859 566 against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After difficulties in serving Wizart LLC and representations from Wizart Inc. that Wizart LLC was a non-existent company, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action against Wizart LLC. The Court permitted the partial withdrawal, finding that Wizart LLC had no legitimate interest in a decision on the merits since service had not yet been completed.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed a patent infringement action against Zentiva Portugal before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), based on a threat of infringement following an INFARMED communication. Zentiva raised a preliminary objection arguing the UPC lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved an administrative matter falling under Portuguese administrative courts. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC has exclusive competence over European patent infringement actions and that the dispute between two private parties did not concern an administrative matter.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, sought inspection at the respondent's trade fair stand at the EMO Messe Hannover, which was ordered and executed in September 2025. Following the respondent's failure to assert any confidentiality interests regarding the expert's detailed description, the court ordered disclosure of the unredacted version to the applicant.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et. al.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC initiated infringement proceedings against Troy Chemical Company B.V., Troy Chemie GmbH, and several Azelis entities concerning European Patent EP3286270. None of the six defendants filed a statement of defence or counterclaim, and the parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings. The claimant subsequently applied for withdrawal of the action with the defendants' consent, and the Court granted the withdrawal along with confidentiality for the settlement-related annexes and a 60% reimbursement of court fees.
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.