technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 20 of 58 · 1,714 total
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure to prevent the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to three designated Vivo employees pending its appeal of a Paris Local Division confidentiality order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 852 468. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose or that its interests outweighed Vivo's interests in timely access to the HCI for filing submissions.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection by Qualcomm defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 552 669. The court held that the withdrawal of an opt-out from the court's exclusive competence was effective, even though the UPC representative who filed the withdrawal application was neither the patent proprietor nor a registered representative in the national patent registers. The court ruled that a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Incorporated v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the patent had been validly opted out and the withdrawal of the opt-out was ineffective due to lack of proper authorization of the UPC representative who filed it. The court held that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective, as a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective, and such lack of representation cannot be raised as a preliminary objection.
MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Nurotron Global SARL, Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a procedural dispute about the proper method of serving a Statement of Claim in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The claimant sought to serve the Statement of Claim on the defendant's legal representative from prior provisional measures proceedings, but the court rejected this approach. The court held that a lawyer authorized in provisional measures proceedings is not automatically authorized to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action, and ordered service to be effected via the Hague Service Convention under Rule 274 RoP.
Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants challenging the Court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 875 683. The court held that the opt-out from the Court's exclusive competence had been effectively withdrawn on 20 December 2023 by a registered UPC representative, and that the lack of a written mandate or power of attorney could not be invoked as a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1(a) RoP.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1. The order addresses an application by Inventronics GmbH (the applicant for file inspection) to suspend proceedings regarding file access. Given ongoing settlement discussions in parallel proceedings, the court ordered the file inspection proceedings suspended by agreement of all parties until a request for resumption is filed. The plaintiff's related request for extension of time was thereby rendered moot.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des einheitlichen Patentgerichts verkündet am 22. August 2025 betreffend EP 2 387 547 B1 LEITSÄTZE: 1. Zweckangaben in einem Vorrichtungsanspruch definieren eine Vorrichtung regelmäßig dahingehend, dass sie geeignet sein muss, für die
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. The dispute centers on MediaTek's request under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements, and Huawei's corresponding request under Rule 262A to classify certain information as confidential or strictly confidential. The order addresses the protection of confidential information in connection with Huawei's submission responding to the production request, referencing a confidentiality agreement between the parties.
LIFE 365 S.R.L., LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. v.Respondent
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande de retrait (R. 265 RdP) d’une demande d’intervention (R. 313 RoP) rendue le 21 août 2025 DEMANDERESSES LIFE 365 S.R.L., Via Alexander Fleming, 22 - 47122 Forlì, Italie représentée par Michele De
HMD Global Oy v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a request by the defendant HMD Global Oy to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense by one month in a patent infringement action brought by Fraunhofer. The court denied the extension, holding that the defense deadline under Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure is already calibrated to permit fact-finding and internal coordination, including across vacation periods, and that the complexity of the FRAND defense involving pool negotiations does not justify additional time where license offers and counter-offers have been on the table for years.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v.Respondent
This Order of the Court of Appeal concerns Yealink's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Mandarin Chinese for an upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 22 September 2025 in Luxembourg. The Court of Appeal addressed whether simultaneous interpretation should be ordered at the Court's expense or whether Yealink should be permitted to engage interpreters at its own cost. The Court held that the mere fact that a defendant is based in a country where the language of proceedings is not official does not justify ordering simultaneous interpretation, and that company officials' difficulties in following proceedings also do not generally warrant such interpretation.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Kodak's applications under R. 262A RoP requesting a confidentiality regime for the appeal proceedings as superfluous. The court held that the existing confidentiality orders issued by the Mannheim Local Division already extended to the appeal proceedings, and that the requirements of the Court's electronic case management system do not override the Rules of Procedure and the Court's case law.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns the release of a security deposit of EUR 25,000 in revocation proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1. The Central Division had previously revoked the Defendant's patent and ordered the Defendant to provide security for the Claimant's legal costs, which was duly deposited. Following a settlement agreement between the parties, both jointly requested the release of the security to the Claimant, and the Court granted the request by applying Rule 352.2 of the Rules of Procedure by analogy.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft filed a request for rectification under R. 353 RoP seeking to supplement a Court of Appeal decision by default against Suinno with a notice under R. 356.3 RoP that any further decision by default would be final. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that Microsoft's request for discretionary review had not included a R. 356.3 RoP notice request, and therefore the Court was bound by the subject-matter of the proceedings as defined by the parties' requests.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order disregarding a post-hearing brief filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. following the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. The court held that under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, there is no basis for filing further pleadings after the close of written proceedings without prior court approval, and this applies even more so after the oral hearing when the case is ready for decision. The court further held that there is no need to respond in writing to the court's introduction after the oral hearing, as any such response should have been made during the hearing itself.
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1, relating to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. The plaintiff, Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S), is suing Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel. The order addresses the conclusion of the interim procedure under Rules 104 and 110(1) of the Rules of Procedure, setting out the court's preliminary view on the relevant skilled person and the feature breakdown of patent claim 1 to be used at the oral hearing.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendant, Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP), to deposit two physical objects (its old product and new product 2) as evidence in proceedings involving patent EP2432351. The claimant, HL Display AB, opposed the request on the grounds that the exhibits were filed late without any explanation. The Court of First Instance rejected the request, finding that BSRP failed to justify why the physical objects could not have been submitted earlier, particularly together with its statement of defence.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.Inventronics GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co KG (Austria), filed an infringement action against the defendant, Inventronics GmbH (Germany). On the joint request of both parties, the court ordered the suspension of proceedings under Rules 295(d) and 296.2 of the Rules of Procedure due to ongoing settlement discussions.
expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf and a proposed preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU. The underlying dispute involved Seoul Viosys's infringement action against the expert companies concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, which the Local Division had revoked following a counterclaim for invalidity and ordered Viosys to pay the costs. The Court of Appeal addressed fundamental questions about the scope of the UPC's ability to refer matters to the CJEU, holding that while the UPC may request interpretation of EU law, it cannot request interpretation of the UPCA itself or its Rules of Procedure.
Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medcial Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in case UPC_CFI_630/2025 concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B1. The applicant Occlutech GmbH sought interim measures against Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd., who challenged both infringement and validity of the patent-in-suit. The court ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel to ensure proper assessment of the patent's validity at the interim measures stage.
Centripetal Limited v.Respondent
The Local Division Mannheim issued a procedural order confirming the judge-rapporteur's earlier decision to reject the Claimant's request to submit a further written pleading on infringement. The Claimant, Centripetal Limited, sought to introduce a new infringement reading based on an alleged newly discovered functionality of the attacked embodiment, but the panel held that allowing such a submission at this late stage would prejudice the Defendants and disrupt the scheduled oral hearing. The panel further barred the Claimant from introducing a fifth infringement reading, noting that the relevant functionalities had been known to the Claimant since 2023 ITC proceedings and since the March 2025 launch of the Defendants' AI Stack.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a deadline extension request in an infringement action involving European Patent EP1969839. The claimant, Adeia Guides Inc., filed exhibits 8 and 9 late on 5 August 2025, and sought a corresponding extension of deadlines. The defendants, comprising three Walt Disney entities, indicated they did not object provided their own subsequent deadlines were not shortened. The court granted the extension, determining that the relevant deadlines for the claimant's rejoinder and reply would begin on 5 August 2025.
ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., Ninepoint GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a request by Defendants 2 to 6 (ASUS-related entities and Ninepoint GmbH) to extend the time period for submitting their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 849 157. The defendants argued that the time period should run from when they obtained access to the unredacted version of exhibit BB1, which contained an agreement between the Claimant and the patent's co-owner. The court granted a one-week extension, extending the deadline to 30 September 2025, finding that the extension was sufficient to compensate for the delayed access to evidence.
OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v.Respondent
This is a definitive rectification order issued by the Local Division Brussels concerning a request under Rule 353 RoP to correct a costs decision (ORD_33711/2025 - ORD_8991/2024) issued on 25 July 2025. The plaintiffs, OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV, sought correction of a material error in the costs decision, specifically that expert VASQUEZ's costs of €2,200 were not included in the total reimbursement amount of €43,865.64 owed by the defendant. The court addressed the scope of rectification orders, clarifying that they cannot revisit the reasoning of the original decision and have no expanding or limiting effect on it.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd., Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd., Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Benia New Material Technolo-gy Co., Ltd.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. filed an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 147 029 against four Chinese defendants before the Local Division Munich. The court ordered the separation of proceedings because service had been effected on two defendants but not yet on the other two, creating mismatched procedural timelines. The action against the two served defendants was ordered to proceed separately, while both proceedings would remain before the same panel.
Moderna Sweden AB, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna France SASU, Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Biotech UK Limited, Moderna Germany GmbH, ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Norway AS, Moderna Biotech Spain SL, v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 UPC_CFI_192/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 18/08/2025 Concerning: R.333 review of an order regarding a preliminary objection R. 19 RoP APPLICANTS / DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN
Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd, OROPE Germany GmbH, Reflection Investment B.V., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., Oleading B.V., OTECH Italia S.r.l., OTECH Germany GmbH, Realme Germany GmbH, OnePlus Technolog v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by the defendants (a group of OPPO, OnePlus, Realme, and related entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Innovative Sonic Corporation based on European Patent EP2765731. The defendants argued that English, being the language in which the patent was granted, should be used as the language of proceedings for reasons of fairness. The claimant opposed the application, requesting its dismissal or, alternatively, that the preferences of the first-instance panel be considered, or that oral proceedings be conducted in German even if the written language were changed.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP3286270, owned by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. The claimant filed suit against Troy Chemical Company B.V., Troy Chemie GmbH, and several Azelis group entities. The parties jointly requested a stay of the proceedings until 13 February 2026, which was granted by the judge-rapporteur pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure.
Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an application for the release of security for procedural costs in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Ballinno B.V. had been ordered on 26 August 2024 to provide €25,000 in security for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA, which it duly provided. Following the adjudication of the appeal on 26 June 2025 and the parties' subsequent settlement agreement, Kinexon requested release of the security with the consent of Ballinno and UEFA. The Court of Appeal ordered the full release and transfer of the €25,000 deposit to Kinexon Sports GmbH's bank account.
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning access restrictions to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities, without having yet lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held the applications inadmissible, ruling that suspensive effect cannot be sought before an appeal is lodged, and that even under the extreme urgency provision (R. 223.4 RoP), a Statement of appeal and payment of the appeal fee are prerequisites.
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.