technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 18 of 51 · 1,511 total
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Peter Hendrik Blok Digitally signed by Peter Hendrik Blok Date: 2025.07.12 11:06:47 +02'00' Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:09:50 +02'00' EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:11:2
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Peter Hendrik Blok Digitally signed by Peter Hendrik Blok Date: 2025.07.12 11:07:34 +02'00' Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:13:46 +02'00' EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:14:09
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 June 2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr Ralph Nack, Dr Nic
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division. The Court held that OTEC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, as it did not establish that the impugned order contained manifest errors or violated fundamental procedural rights.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc.
Nera Innovations Ltd., an Ireland-based patent licensing company, sued several entities of the Xiaomi group for infringement of European Patent EP 2 642 632 B1, which protects wireless energy receivers, based on the use of such devices in smartphones including the Xiaomi 13 Pro and Xiaomi POCO F5 Pro 5G. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the patent proprietor defended the patent in auxiliary requests. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed, among other things, the admissibility of a high number of auxiliary requests with a narrow core, the prohibition of intermediate generalization under Article 123(2) and (3) EPC, and the relevance of a prior art citation concerning near-field communication antenna tuning as opposed to wireless power receivers.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, with Aesculap AG as claimant and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) as defendant. The order addressed two procedural questions: how to treat a defendant's absence from the oral hearing when it had previously informed the Registry of its non-attendance, and what level of specificity is required when contesting the claimant's substantiated infringement allegations. The Court ruled that a non-appearing defendant who had informed the Registry would be treated as relying solely on its written submissions, and that defendants must specifically address the claimant's concrete factual allegations rather than relying on general statements about the burden of proof.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Respondent
This preliminary order was issued in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2437696, owned by Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. The Claimant sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its case, requesting that its infringement claims be based on the B2 version of the patent rather than the B1 version originally referenced in the Statement of Claim. The Judge-Rapporteur dismissed the application as devoid of purpose, reasoning that under Article 68 EPC, the B2 version had retroactive effect from the original grant date, meaning the B2 text was always the operative version. The revised Statement of Claim reflecting the correct B2 text was admitted into the proceedings.
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.FUJIFILM Corporation
This is a cost decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. FUJIFILM Corporation had sued three Kodak entities for patent infringement in Germany and the United Kingdom, and the Kodak entities had filed counterclaims for revocation. On 28 January 2025, the court revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered FUJIFILM to bear the costs. The Defendants then applied for a cost decision, which the court largely granted, awarding reimbursement of representation costs, travel expenses, and other costs, while disallowing certain expert and barrister costs as well as costs for the cost proceedings themselves.
Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy GmbH, Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court allowed Chint's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to order security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 092 759. The Court held that the fact that JingAo Solar is based in China, a non-EU/EEA state, combined with documented difficulties in serving documents in China, supported a finding that enforcement of a cost decision would be unduly burdensome. The Court ordered JingAo to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company, Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, BAMTech LLC.
This case concerns an application by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Interdigital CE Patent Holdings SAS against The Walt Disney Company and several related entities regarding four European patents. The dispute arose after the applicants obtained an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) on May 27, 2025, and sought to serve it on the respondents' representatives via the special electronic lawyer mailbox (beA). The respondents' representatives refused to issue a confirmation of receipt, claiming improper service, while simultaneously communicating that their clients would not seek an Anti-Suit Injunction. The Local Chamber Mannheim, presided over by Judge Tochtermann, addressed the refusal to accept service under Rule 206 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
The Walt Disney Company entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. concerning EP3259902, applied for a change of the language of proceedings from German to English under Article 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant opposed the request, arguing that all defendants should submit their own corresponding applications or alternatively be given the opportunity to be heard before any decision is issued. The President of the Court of First Instance ruled that the position of all parties potentially affected by the requested change must be heard in the context of such an application.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a security for costs order. The Munich Local Division's judge-rapporteur had ordered Chint to provide security for costs in favor of JingAo in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 787 541. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that a security for costs order issued by a judge-rapporteur is a case management order under R. 333.1 RoP that may only be appealed after review by the panel of the Court of First Instance.
Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The claimant, Total Semiconductor, LLC, has brought suit against Texas Instruments Incorporation and two of its German subsidiaries. The order, issued by judge-rapporteur Böttcher, sets out preliminary views and questions for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 22 July 2025, addressing issues including the requirements for defending dependent claims, claim construction regarding the term 'interrupt,' and the interpretation of 'directly coupled' in the relevant patent features.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.Respondent
This order concerns the determination of the value of the case for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs in proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (Claimant) and AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. (Defendants). The Claimant valued the infringement case at EUR 2,000,000, while the Defendants disputed the sales volume, machine prices, and royalty rate. The judge-rapporteur set the value of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 2,000,000 each, subject to possible reconsideration by the Panel at the conclusion of the oral hearing.
Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Munich issued an order on a procedural application by the Renault Defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action based on European Patent EP3726780. The Renault entities argued that English, the language in which the patent was granted, should be used for reasons of fairness. The Claimant, Avago Technologies, opposed the application. The order was issued pursuant to Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure, with the President providing a headnote on the assessment of language change applications.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
This appeal concerned access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in three patent infringement actions brought by Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) against Qualcomm entities before the Munich Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected both NST's appeal seeking access for an additional US attorney (Peter Krusiewicz) and Qualcomm's cross-appeal seeking to revoke access even for the one US attorney (Daniel S. Stringfield) already granted access by the Munich LD. The Court held that the Munich LD's discretionary decision to grant access to only one trusted US attorney was not flawed, as NST failed to demonstrate that more than one US attorney was necessary.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. requested an extension of the deadline to respond to the defendants' brief dated June 13, 2025, until July 9, 2025, citing the temporary unavailability of the case management system from July 3 to July 8, 2025. The defendants consented to the extension. The presiding judge rejected the request, holding that there was no legal interest in granting it because Rule 301.2 of the Rules of Procedure already provides for an automatic extension of time in cases of temporary CMS unavailability.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerns an application for reimbursement of court fees following the settlement of an appeal in a patent revocation action. Tandem Diabetes had filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes regarding EP 2 196 231, which was dismissed by the Central Division Paris. After the parties settled, Tandem Diabetes sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that, since the written procedure had not been closed at the time of settlement, Tandem Diabetes was entitled to a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees.
Appellant*** v.ORTHOAPNEA S.L., VIVISOL B BV
1 Beslissing van het Hof van Beroep van het Eengemaakt Octrooigerecht betreffende een verzoek tot intrekking van het beroep uitgesproken op 3 juli 2025 INHOUDSINDICATIE De begroting van de te vergoeden proceskosten na de intrekking van een vordering of beroep is overeenkomstig R. 2
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff Headwater Research LLC, asserting infringement of European Patent EP 3 110 072, sought security for costs from the defendants, while the defendants (Motorola entities and Flextronics) sought security from the plaintiff in connection with their counterclaims for revocation. The court held that even though a defendant in an infringement suit is formally the claimant in a revocation counterclaim, they may under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP demand security for the costs incurred or to be incurred through that counterclaim, as otherwise the defendant would be unreasonably restricted in their defense.
Advanced Bionics AG v.Respondent
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees for both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and against the counterclaim for revocation, as these constitute separate actions under Art. 32(1) UPCA.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH, SSAB Europe Oy
This case concerns an appeal by Tiroler Rohre GmbH against a cost assessment order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings concerning EP 2 839 083. Tiroler Rohre had applied for provisional measures against SSAB but withdrew the application after the court indicated concerns during the oral hearing. The Local Division ordered Tiroler Rohre to pay costs, and SSAB subsequently sought detailed cost assessment. Tiroler Rohre appealed, arguing that a separate cost assessment procedure was inadmissible because the cost decision had already been made together with the withdrawal decision under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure.
Advanced Bionics GmbH v.Respondent
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation since they constitute separate actions under Article 32(1) UPCA.
Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H., seeking an order requiring the intervenor, Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 169,000.00 in connection with an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717 against defendant Yunex GmbH. The intervenor opposed the application, requesting its rejection or, alternatively, a significant reduction in the amount. The presiding judge rejected the application, following the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in a prior decision (AorticLab v. Emboline), holding that security for costs should not be ordered for an admitted intervenor even though such an intervenor is treated as a party for cost reimbursement purposes.
QUANTIFICARE S.A. v.Canfield Scientific, Inc., ESTHETEC SAS, Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l.
Quantificare S.A. brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1 against five defendants, who in turn filed a revocation counterclaim. The Chamber addressed the procedural question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, which governs combined infringement and revocation proceedings. After hearing the parties, the Chamber ordered a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim under Article 33(3)(a), and instructed the Rapporteur to request the assignment of a technically qualified judge.
Corning Incorporated v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 July 2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Corning - US represented by: Dr. Marcus Grosch, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sul
Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V., *** v.Visibly Inc.
This appeal concerned cross-appeals against an order of the Hamburg Local Division requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs of EUR 75,000 for the revocation action in proceedings involving patent EP 3 918 974. Following the Local Division's order staying the proceedings in their entirety due to insolvency proceedings regarding the Easee companies, the Court of Appeal stayed the appeal proceedings as they were devoid of purpose during the stay.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1 and addresses applications under Rule 370.11 of the Rules of Procedure for partial reimbursement of court fees. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, filed a patent infringement action on December 27, 2023, against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and Air Liquide Healthcare-related companies. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on April 19, 2024, and an oral hearing was held on April 9, 2025.
Acer Computer GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Acer Computer GmbH for public access to written pleadings and evidence filed in related patent amendment proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024) concerning EP 2 661 892 B1, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. Acer argued that access was necessary to assess the validity of the patent, particularly because HP had filed an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent. The Defendant (Nokia) did not oppose the request but argued that Acer must ensure third parties do not receive access to the documents. The presiding judge granted the application for file inspection.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB for public access to the written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings UPC_CFI_181/2024 (related to European Patent EP2661892 owned by Nokia Technologies Oy), in which HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. was the claimant and Nokia Technologies Oy was the defendant. The main proceedings had been concluded on 27 March 2025 following the withdrawal of the action. The applicant sought access to better understand how the parties and the court conducted the proceedings, arguing that such access supports professional advice by UPC representatives. The defendant Nokia opposed the request, arguing the applicant lacked a specific personal interest and had not sufficiently demonstrated a general interest justifying access.
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.