technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 15 of 58 · 1,714 total
Genentech, Inc. - F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. - N.V. Organon
1. A double assessment determines the scope of review proceedings in application of R. 197.3 RoP: a) First, the Court should assess whether it has “rightly” (cf. LD Munich 28 May 2025, UPC_CFI_63/2025 and LD Düsseldorf 16 April 2025, UPC_CFI_539/2024) decided to issue an “ex parte” order to preserve evidence/for inspection (R.194.1(d) RoP juncto R. 194.2 RoP). In this assessment, the Court should take into consideration the facts and evidence (i) brought forward in the application for an
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH a. o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing the Defendants' application for review under R. 333.1 RoP of a case management order that had dismissed their requests to extend time periods for filing a Rejoinder, a Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation, and a Defence to the Claimant's Application to amend the patent-in-suit. The court found the request for review admissible but unfounded, holding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate any hindrance or complication of legal defence warranting an extension, and that merely having less time than the opposing party does not constitute compelling reasons for extending statutory deadlines.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co. a.o.
1. One of the circumstances relevant to admission to a confidentiality club is whether the individual is an employee of the party, an employee of the party’s economic unit or an employee of a third party. 2. If it is possible for a person who is not an employee of the party to join a confidentiality club, it is – depending on the relevant circumstances of the case – in any case justified for employees of the party or its economic unit to be admitted to a confidentiality club. UPC_CFI_7
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Blankenhorn GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) related to a prior main case (UPC_CFI_500/2025) concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought cost assessment against Blankenhorn GmbH, the respondent from the main proceedings. The court permitted the withdrawal of the cost assessment application after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the respondent did not object, declaring the cost assessment procedure terminated without a costs decision.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Lepu's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a provisional injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech concerning European Patent EP 2 387 951. The court held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Occlutech's interest in preventing the established imminent patent infringement.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding alleged infringement of EP 4 249 647, which relates to an electrolytic medium and electropolishing process. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order that had granted an injunction against OTEC, finding that STEROS failed to demonstrate that the attacked embodiment (electropolishing medium EF 16-11) contained a non-conductive fluid with conductivity no greater than 10 micronS/cm as required by claim 1 of the patent. The Court held that experimental data not disclosed in the patent specification are generally not relevant to claim interpretation.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. v.HL Display AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s (BSRP) application for suspensive effect against an information order issued by the Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings brought by HL Display AB concerning EP 2 432 351. The Court of Appeal held that BSRP failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting suspension, as information orders are necessary to ensure a high level of patent protection and BSRP had not shown manifest error or that the appeal would be devoid of purpose.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' request for security for legal costs in provisional measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The court held that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of substantiation regarding the alleged difficulty of enforcing a costs order in the United States, as their reliance on a prior Munich Local Division order was insufficient to establish facts specific to this case.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spolka z o.o.
Brita SE, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1 relating to water filter devices with locking cartridges, filed a preliminary injunction application against the Polish company Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. The defendant is part of the Fileder Group, whose German distribution subsidiary had previously been warned by Brita for alleged patent infringement and issued a cease-and-desist declaration, subsequently identifying the defendant as the supplier of the allegedly infringing water filter systems. The Local Division Hamburg issued an order on November 6, 2025, following receipt of the application on November 5, 2025.
Dolle A/S v.Farko a.o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1, with Dolle A/S as plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, and four FAKRO entities (from Austria, Germany, Denmark, and Poland) as defendants and counterclaimants. The decision addresses three key legal points: the interpretation of 'same invention' under Article 87 EPC for priority purposes, procedural rules regarding the timing of validity attacks in revocation counterclaims, and the interpretation of general claim terms in light of prior art cited in the patent. The Local Division Hamburg issued its decision on November 5, 2025, confirming the disclosure standard for priority as corresponding to the added matter standard.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., against expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH. The appeal concerns the assessment of added matter (unzulässige Erweiterung) under Article 123(2) EPC, particularly where the patent was derived from an international application not filed in an official EPO language. The Court of Appeal addressed key legal questions regarding the role of translations of international applications and the standard for assessing disclosures in earlier applications.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al
1 UPC_CFI_666/2024 UPC_CFI_ 199/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division The Hague delivered on 3/11/2025 concerning: order after interim conference (R. 105.5) Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 07/11/2024 The Walt Disne
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et. al.
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim on November 3, 2025, in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333. The plaintiff, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, brought the action against numerous defendants affiliated with the Geely automotive group, including entities related to Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart brands. The case involves an opposition under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, and the order was issued by the Rapporteur Judge Sender.
IMI Hydronics Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V
This procedural order from the Central Division Paris addresses Belparts Group N.V.'s application to join its counterclaim for infringement with the main infringement action pending before the Local Division Munich, in the context of multi-jurisdictional proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP3812870. The dispute involves parallel infringement and revocation actions across the Local Division Munich and the Central Division Paris, with all IMI defendants consenting to the referral. The panel considered Rule 340.1 of the Rules of Procedure regarding connection of cases, taking into account the scheduling of proceedings and the pending Boards of Appeal hearing at the European Patent Office.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Vivo Mobile Communication entities (respondents in the appeal) requested the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court to stay the first instance infringement proceedings and/or extend the time limit for filing their Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation, pending the outcome of a confidentiality appeal and a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over a FRAND rate determination claim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that R. 21.2 RoP did not apply because the pending appeal was not against a decision on a preliminary objection, and that as a general rule it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on stays or time extensions in proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
Occultech GmbH. v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a. o.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2, issued on October 31, 2025. The applicant, Occlutech GmbH, sought provisional measures in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out key legal principles regarding the scope of protection of device claims, the burden of presentation and proof in preliminary injunction proceedings, and the handling of disputed translations of prior art documents.
IMI Hydronics Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V
This procedural order concerns a revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and a counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) related to European Patent EP3812870, owned by Belparts Group N.V. The claimant IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH initiated the revocation action before the Central Division Paris, while Belparts lodged a counterclaim for infringement. The order addresses procedural matters including the connection/joinder of proceedings and the referral of the counterclaim for infringement to the Local Division Munich, where related proceedings between the parties are already pending.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
1 Numero di riferimento: UPC_CoA_8/2025 APL_366/2025 Ordinanza della Corte d'appello del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti in merito alla richiesta di garanzia per le spese ai sensi della regola 158 del regolamento di procedura emessa il 30 ottobre 2025 NOTE: • Se necessari
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.Vivo Tech GmbH Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action against three Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division concerning European Patent EP3852468. Vivo filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP, arguing that the Unified Patent Court lacks jurisdiction because Sun Patent Trust's main claim sought a declaration that its licence offer was FRAND and, alternatively, a determination of FRAND terms by the court, which Vivo contended falls outside the UPC's competence. Vivo additionally contested the internal competence of the Paris Local Division under Rule 19.1(b) RoP. Sun Patent Trust countered that the UPC has jurisdiction over FRAND aspects and that the Paris Local Division is competent to hear the case, requesting dismissal of the preliminary objection.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH a.o.
The applicant, sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 relating to a counter-current swimming device, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of the respondents ahead of a potential main infringement action. The respondents are wholesale distributors of inverter-controlled pool and garden technology, with the Austrian parent company marketing an 'InverJet' counter-current system. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order concerning the inspection and evidence preservation request filed on October 28, 2025.
Skechers USA Deutschland GmbH, Skechers S.a.r.l, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers EDC SPRL, Skechers USA Italia Srl, Skechers USA France SAS v.FAST IP, LLC
FAST IP LLC brought an infringement action against multiple Skechers group entities based on European patent EP4003084 concerning rapid-entry footwear. The Defendants applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of the proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The Claimant opposed the application. The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order addressing the application to change the language of the proceedings.
BF exaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation a. o.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the Defendants' application for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 614 263. The Defendants argued that Claimant ParTec AG faced severe liquidity problems based on press reports, while the Claimants contended they had sufficient assets to cover any adverse costs award. The judge rapporteur ordered Claimant ParTec AG to provide security in the amount of EUR 80,500.00 within six weeks, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2579551, owned by Malikie Innovations Ltd. against Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 22 October 2025, addressing procedural matters including the value of the case, reimbursement of legal costs, parallel proceedings status, the claimant's operational request regarding the counterclaim for revocation, and the admissibility of certain evidence and claim amendments. The judge-rapporteur admitted the Patent Sale Agreement and Patent Assignment Agreement as exhibits and granted leave to amend the patent claims under Rule 263 RoP.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
1 di 18 TRIBUNALE UNIFICATO DEI BREVETTI TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO UPC CFI n. 127/2025 ORDINANZA SULLA RICHIESTA DI RIESAME DELL’ORDINE DI PROTEZIONE DELLA PROVA, DI ISPEZIONE E DI SEQUESTRO depositata in data 27 ottobre 2025 NOTE 1. Ai fini della conce
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v.AWM s.r.l.,Schnell s.p.a.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2726230 B1, which protects a method and apparatus for continuously producing a lattice girder. Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, the patent proprietor, alleged that the Girderflex/Girderflex VSX machinery produced by AWM s.r.l. (a member of the Schnell Group since 2022) infringed its patent. The defendants contested validity through a counterclaim for revocation, raising issues of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The Milan Local Division of the Court of First Instance addressed these substantive patent law questions alongside procedural matters concerning evidence preservation and requests to amend the patent.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.
« 2. the applicant’s assertions during the grant procedings […] can be seen as an indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date ». Mais en l’occurrence, le déposant a tiré les conséquences de ses déclarations et les a mises en œuvre en amendant sa demande de brevet, afin d’échapper au grief d’absence de nouveauté, ce qui démontre que RPN considérait bien lui-même à cette époque, que les deux parois parallèles du brevet US628 étaient nécessaires pour espacer les
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al.
This is an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 791 402 B1 relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene Multifilament Yarn, brought by Avient Protective Materials B.V. against two Chinese group companies collectively referred to as 'Xinji.' The Claimant sought alternative service under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure after the standard service via The Hague Service Convention to China, initiated on 2 July 2025, failed to produce a certificate of service despite multiple inquiries. The Claimant proposed service at the A+A Trade Fair in Düsseldorf by a German bailiff upon any staff member of the Defendants at their exhibition stand, with alternative methods also proposed.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This decision concerns European patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. bioMérieux UK Limited filed a revocation action against the patent, while bioMérieux SA and other bioMérieux group entities filed a counterclaim for revocation in response to an infringement action brought by Labrador Diagnostics in the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Central Division Milan addressed issues including amendments to the patent, auxiliary requests, added subject-matter, novelty, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, costs, and confidentiality. The court established that when a party submits numerous attacks that are unmanageable under principles of proportionality and speed, only the most promising attacks will be assessed on the merits.
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.