technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 16 of 58 · 1,714 total
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V. et. al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against seven defendants concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The defendants filed a preliminary objection challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (domiciled in Bosnia and Herzegovina), competence over five Dutch defendants, and the competence of the Mannheim division, seeking transfer to The Hague. The court rejected all preliminary objections, finding that international jurisdiction and competence were properly established, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare et al.
UPC_CFI_587 22 October 2025 1 UPC_CFI_587/2025 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division in The Hague issued on 22 October 2025 concerning EP 3 988 471 (R.211 provisional measures) APPLICANT Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. Represented by: Christ
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 387 951 B1 covering a braided implantable occlusion device, sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities for alleged infringement with their 'MemoCarna ASD' and 'MemoCarna VSD' devices. The Local Division Hamburg held that the Defendants' recent CE-mark approval, combined with their public marketing activities and trade fair participation, established imminent infringement and territorial jurisdiction in Germany. The court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, or using the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland, with a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.
Amycel LLC v.XXX
This is a decision by default issued by the Local Division The Hague in an infringement action brought by Amycel LLC, proprietor of EP 1 993 350 B2 relating to 'Brown mushrooms for commercial production,' against a defendant referred to as 'PL.' The defendant failed to file its Statement of Defence in time after a Rule 275 order, resulting in a default judgment. The court confirmed the orders previously given in the related provisional measures proceedings, held that the mushroom strain at issue is not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC, found infringement, and granted measures insofar as they were deemed lawful, reasonable, and sufficiently founded.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH a.o.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1. Following settlement negotiations, the Claimant and Defendants 1–4 reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, and Defendant 5 agreed to the withdrawal. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs, and granted the Claimant a 60% reimbursement of court fees (€6,600).
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd. , Meril GmbH , Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action filed by the Meril entities against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding European Patent No. 4 151 181 B1 ('EP 181'), alongside a counterclaim for infringement brought by Edwards against the Meril entities. The dispute encompasses both the validity of EP 181, challenged by Meril, and alleged infringement of EP 181, asserted by Edwards. The Court of First Instance issued its decision on 20 October 2025, establishing legal principles on inventive step assessment, the holistic approach to non-obviousness, the definition of a realistic starting point, and the discretionary nature of injunctive remedies.
ONWARD Medical N.V v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought interim injunctive relief against Niche Biomedical, Inc. (doing business as ANEUVO) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, directed to a system for neuromodulation. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the legal principle that auxiliary requests seeking interim measures based on alternative claim formulations deviating from the granted patent version are generally inadmissible in provisional proceedings under Article 62 EPGÜ. The court held that a patent proprietor's request to amend the claim formulation indicates that the patent as granted is likely invalid, undermining the court's ability to assess the validity required for granting interim relief.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH a.o.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation following a 4 April 2025 order requiring the three Meril defendants to jointly and severally bear the costs of the proceedings. Edwards sought reimbursement of EUR 774,696.49 in costs of representation, court fees, travel expenses, and other costs, while Meril contested the necessity and proportionality of various travel-related expenses. The Local Division Munich, through Judge-Rapporteur Dr. Matthias Zigann, held that UPC representatives have broad discretion in determining how to effectively represent their parties, and that the disputed travel costs were marginal relative to the overall costs, warranting award at the judge's discretion.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, which relates to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. Defendant 1 reached a settlement with HP and agreed not to defend against the main motions, while service to Defendant 2 in China had not been completed. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order by default against Defendant 1, granting the preliminary injunction, information orders, and penalty payments, while reserving decision on costs and the application against Defendant 2.
AX Wireless, LLC v.1) Xiaomi Inc. 2) Xiaomi Corporation 3) Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH 4) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
AX Wireless, LLC filed a patent infringement action against four Xiaomi entities before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3072324. The Defendants requested an extension and alignment of procedural deadlines for all four Defendants so that a consolidated defence could be filed, and the Claimant consented. The Court granted the request, aligning the deadlines for all Defendants.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare et al.
This is a provisional measures order from the Court of First Instance, Local Division in The Hague, concerning European patent EP4344633. Applicant Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., a market leader in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems with its FreeStyle Libre product, sought provisional measures against Defendants Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. in connection with their GlucoMen iCan CGM system. The dispute centers on an alleged infringement of Abbott's unitary patent relating to CGM technology, with Sinocare manufacturing the device and Menarini holding exclusive distribution rights in over 20 European countries.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.1) Insulet Corporation; 2) EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - UPC_CFI_941/2025 Final Order pursuant to Rule 262.1 b) RoP of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/10/2025 APPLICANT Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP - Breite Str. 29, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany Represent
Brita SE v.1) AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o, 2. AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, 3. Gasmarine BV Srl, 4. MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 16.10.2025 KLÄGERIN UND NICHTIGKEITSWIDERBEKLAGTE Brita SE, gesetzlich vertreten durch den Vorstand Markus Hankammer, Stefan Rudolf Jonitz und Dr. Rüdiger Kraege, Heinz-Hankammer-Straße 1, 652
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. a. o.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. and Andreas Rentmeister e.K. for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. When service via the Chinese Central Authority under the Hague Convention failed after three and a half months—with Chinese authorities claiming the defendant did not exist at the provided address—the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. et. al.
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for invalidity regarding European Patent EP 3 567 731. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, the plaintiff Huawei Technologies requested permission to withdraw the infringement action against both defendants with the consent of Defendant 2, while Defendant 2 requested permission to withdraw its counterclaim for invalidity with the plaintiff's consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim granted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the court fees paid by each party, while declining to issue a cost decision since neither party filed cost applications.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
All costs relating to the enforcement do not fall within the scope of Rule 151 RoP. The wording of Rule 150 RoP does not allow for the compensation of costs incurred after the publication of the decision. The
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. a. o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 859 566, in which the court permitted alternative service of the Statement of claim on Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure. After two failed attempts to serve Wizart LLC at its original Wilmington, Delaware address and at the registered agent's address in Newark, the court authorized service on the CEO at his business address in Gdańsk, Poland, finding that such service was permissible under Polish law.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. EP 2 755 901 B1, brought by Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brodrene Hartmann A/S) against Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel. The dispute relates to the German, French, and Dutch portions of the European patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued headnotes addressing the interpretation of 'same invention' under Article 87 EPC for priority purposes, the standard for inventive step regarding material selection, and issues of equivalence.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal against an order relating to penalty payments under the Rules of Procedure. The judgment sets out headnotes explaining the framework for penalty orders under Rule 354.3 RoP, including when penalty orders may be issued, how penalty amounts should be determined, what specifications the order must contain, and the respective responsibilities of claimants and defendants regarding suggested amounts and time periods for compliance.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited o. a.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the admissibility of the Claimant's unsolicited submission of 1 September 2025. The court admitted the translation of main requests and clarifications regarding direct infringement auxiliary requests, but rejected as inadmissible the new auxiliary requests concerning indirect infringement, finding that the Claimant failed to justify late filing under R. 36 RoP.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co.,Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court upheld a judge-rapporteur's order denying the claimant's application for leave to change its claim to add an auxiliary request asserting infringement by equivalence for additional patent features. The defendants had requested a panel review under R. 333 RoP, arguing the reasoning was disadvantageous to them. The panel found the review admissible but rejected it on the merits, confirming that extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 did not alter the nature or scope of the dispute.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 605 534 B1. The plaintiff Dolby International AB sought relief against defendants Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. Upon the defendants' motion and after hearing the plaintiff, the court cancelled the oral hearing scheduled for October 16, 2025, because one of the defendants' lead attorneys was personally unable to attend and substitution was not feasible given the short notice and case complexity. The court indicated its intention to schedule a new hearing for February 4, 2026, giving the parties until October 21, 2025 to submit comments.
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
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.