technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 58 · 1,714 total
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. a. o.
Evac Oy, a Finnish company, brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf against Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. (China), VD Solutions GmbH (Germany), and Mr. Yong Cao concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1. The decision addresses key procedural and substantive issues including limitation periods under Article 72 UPCA, the distinction between financial compensation claims (subject to a five-year limitation period) and injunctive relief (not subject to limitation), as well as questions of consent, forfeiture, de facto business succession, and exhaustion of rights. An oral hearing was held on May 19, 2026, and the judgment was rendered on June 22, 2026.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Acer Inc. a.o.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed an infringement action against Acer entities regarding European Patent EP 2 661 892, while the Acer parties filed a counterclaim for revocation of the same patent. Both parties subsequently sought to withdraw their respective claims and requests for partial refund of court fees. The Local Chamber Munich allowed the withdrawals of both the main infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered partial refunds of court fees in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed appeals (UPC-CoA-4/2026 and UPC-CoA-13/2026) concerning the jurisdiction of the Central Division (Paris section) over an infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Robert Bosch entities, some domiciled in Contracting Member States and others outside. The Court of Appeal reversed the Central Division's orders that had declined jurisdiction and referred the case to the Düsseldorf Local Division, holding that Article 33(1), third
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag sought review of an ex parte order for preservation of evidence dated 17 April 2026, concerning European Patent EP3289139, against WEPA Nederland B.V. The defendant WEPA requested review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The single judge denied the review, finding that no obligation for employees to answer questions could be derived from the order, that the order adequately set a time limit for initiating proceedings on the merits, and that urgency was properly assumed given the digital nature of documents and the defendant's membership in a group of companies.
- ILLUMINA, INC. v.- Element Biosciences, Inc - Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V. - I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd.and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, proprietor of EP 4 240 194 B1 relating to fastening devices for head-protective gear, obtained an ex parte injunction and seizure order against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited on 5 November 2025 during the EICMA motorcycle trade fair in Milan. The respondents applied for review of the order, challenging validity, infringement, and the balance of interests. The Milan Local Division revoked the provisional measures in their entirety, finding no infringement, no urgency, and that Cardo had breached its duty of candour, while ordering Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in interim costs and partially releasing the security deposit.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning an application for interim measures in a patent infringement dispute. Occlutech GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 1 998 686 relating to an occlusion instrument, appealed an order of the Local Division Düsseldorf dated 31 October 2025 in proceedings against Lepu Medical (Europe) and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing), which market competing occlusion devices called MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD. The appeal addressed issues including the absence of a party at the oral hearing, claim interpretation, and the admissibility of new facts and evidence in appeal proceedings.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC a.o.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) sought discretionary review of a Munich Local Division order requiring it to provide security for costs in its patent infringement action against Motorola Mobility entities and Lenovo. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, finding it admissible but not meritorious, as ASC failed to demonstrate that the impugned order was manifestly erroneous.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. in connection with ongoing main proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2727342 B1 related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology. Ericsson argued urgency based on the delay of the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Milan Local Division dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief at this late stage of the proceedings on the merits.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures (injunction) against ASUSTeK and Arvato in the Milan Local Division, related to ongoing main proceedings concerning EP 3 076 673 B1 (a video coding/HEVC patent). The application was filed after the main proceedings on the merits had commenced, with Ericsson citing delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were already in their final stages.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This order concerns a request for confidentiality filed by Fives ECL in its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 1 740 740. The Local Division had dismissed Fives' claim for damages and lost profits against REEL GmbH, finding that Fives had failed to sufficiently demonstrate lost profits and the causal link between the alleged infringement and the claimed losses. Fives filed its appeal on March 17, 2026, and submitted its appeal brief on June 11, 2026, which included a confidentiality request seeking to restrict access to certain grey-highlighted text passages and newly introduced annexes.
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between Bostik, Inc. and several Henkel entities regarding European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1. Bostik alleges that certain Henkel products in the Liofol® range infringe its patent, while Henkel has filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Court of First Instance held an interim conference on 1 June 2026, during which the parties discussed the main legal issues including claim interpretation, patent validity, alleged infringement acts, and corrective measures.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company. et.al.
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v.VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between two competitors in the food processing machinery market. The plaintiff, Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG, is the registered proprietor of European Patent No. 3 106 035 relating to a receiving basket for a lifting device and a method for loading a food processing machine. The defendant, VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH, manufactures and distributes vacuum filling machines designated 'DPnx' and 'HPnx' featuring a receiving basket for a trolley that allegedly infringes the plaintiff's patent. The patent, filed on 19 June 2015 and granted on 19 September 2018, had previously survived an opposition before the EPO Board of Appeal.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This is an order issued by the Paris Local Division following an interim conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2345029 owned by Orange SA. The order addresses procedural matters including the value of the dispute (set at 3 million euros), recoverable costs, confidentiality arrangements, and the organization of the upcoming oral hearing. The court scheduled a public hearing on 7 July for validity and infringement issues, followed by a non-public hearing on 8 July for non-technical matters.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This order concerns a stay of cost proceedings in a dispute between SharkNinja Operating LLC and several SEB entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Following the dismissal of SharkNinja's provisional measures application based on EP 3 689 198 and SharkNinja's subsequent appeal, SEB filed an application for costs. Both parties agreed that the cost proceedings should be stayed until the Court of Appeal delivers its judgment, and the judge-rapporteur granted the stay.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Irdeto B.V. v.DJI Europe B.V.. et.al.
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-12) under reference UPC_3F6FC747A3, Irdeto B.V. appeared in dispute with DJI Europe B.V.. et.al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This is a cost decision by the UPC Central Division (Milan) in which INSULET Corporation sought recovery of legal costs from EOFLOW Co. Ltd relating to EOFLOW's application for leave to appeal (UPC_CFI_1167/2025), the appellate proceedings concerning EOFLOW's appeal against a penalty order (UPC_CoA_930/2025), and ancillary remedies. The court found the application admissible and partially well-founded, determining that the objective interest corresponded to the EUR 150,000 penalty at stake, with
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. et. al
This is a Rule 105.5 procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur following an interim conference in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The claimant, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, asserts European Patent EP2590626 B1 against fifteen Moderna entities across multiple European jurisdictions. The interim conference was held online on 11 June 2026 to streamline and prepare the proceedings for the upcoming oral hearing, addressing topics suggested by both the Court and the parties.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-11) under reference UPC_0805AED25C, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc. o. a.
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendants (Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH) for an order requiring the Claimant (Nixu FL IP Protection LLC) to provide security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 005 696 B1. The Defendants argued that the Claimant was a newly established litigation vehicle incorporated in Texas in March 2025, that it had no meaningful assets, and that enforcement of a cost award in Florida would be costly and uncertain. The Court addressed whether Florida's statutory requirements for recognizing foreign judgments justified ordering security, and whether the Claimant's asset structure warranted such an order.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a. o.
The appellants (Siemens entities) sought to withdraw their application for suspensive effect in appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-94/2026) relating to a counterclaim for revocation, arguing the application had been filed accidentally. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal under R. 265 RoP and granted the appellants' auxiliary request for reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 1,300), rejecting their main request for full reimbursement.
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, challenging the Local Division Hamburg's determination of the value in dispute for a Counterclaim for revocation at EUR 1,000,000. The Applicant argued that the value should have been set higher, at EUR 1,500,000, in accordance with the Administrative Committee's Guidelines. The Court of Appeal held the request admissible but dismissed it on the merits, finding that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion given the short remaining duration of the patent and the size of the Applicant's company.
FERRING B.V. et al v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning patent EP4512389 owned by Ferring B.V. The order addresses requests by defendants to align procedural deadlines for lodging preliminary objections and statements of defence. The judge-rapporteur granted the alignment request, setting uniform deadlines for all defendants while reserving rights regarding defendant 6's service conditions.
Nokia Technologies Oy a.o. v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy had sought an ex parte 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales before the Local Chamber Mannheim, which was granted on 20 April 2026 subject to a €600,000 security deposit. The applicants deposited the security on 21 April 2026. On 27 May 2026, with the respondents' consent, the applicants requested withdrawal of the application and release of the security. The Mannheim Local Chamber allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the full release of the €600,000 security deposit.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc. a. o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-08) under reference UPC_0C3E23552C, Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS appeared in dispute with Amgen Inc. a. o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Morello Forni Italia srl e Morello Forni Sas di Morello Marco & C v.Gastroteam Abbe AB e Marciuliano Attrezzature di Salvatore Marciuliano
This is a cost decision by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, following a prior judgment (UPC CFI n. 802/2024) finding that Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano infringed patent EP3691454. The claimants sought reimbursement of €62,719.20 in litigation costs. The court determined that the cost application was timely filed and properly notified to both defendants, and awarded a total of €62,359.32, reducing the representatives' fees from €45,359.88 to €45,000 based on the proportionality principle and the limited complexity of the case.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. o.a.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against three Defendants concerning claim 2 of EP 2 005 696 B1, alleging infringement in Germany, France, Finland, and the United Kingdom. While jurisdiction over the two German-domiciled Defendants under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 4(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation was not contested, the US-domiciled Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the Court's international jurisdiction. The core dispute centers on whether the UPC can assert jurisdiction over the US Defendant via the anchor defendant theory under Article 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly with respect to the UK portion of the European Patent, given that the UK is not a UPCA member state.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited Nagor Limited GC Aesthetics Management Limited GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited GC Aesthetics (France) SAS EuroSilicone SAS GC Aesthetics Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spai
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
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.