technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 21 of 58 · 1,714 total
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2432351, owned by HL Display AB. The order addresses several preparatory matters for the oral hearing, including the appointment of a technical judge, the use of visual aids, and the rescheduling of the main hearing. The court set the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both the infringement claim and the counterclaim, and rescheduled the oral hearing to 22 August 2025.
RiVOLUTiON GmbH v.Cilag GmbH International
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application by RiVOLUTiON GmbH for suspension of enforcement (aufschiebende Wirkung) of a preliminary injunction order issued by the Munich Local Division on August 6, 2025, in favor of Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC regarding EP 2 515 768. The Munich Local Division had ordered Rivolution to cease offering, marketing, or using surgical instruments incorporating the features of claim 1 of the patent in Germany, with a coercive penalty for non-compliance, and ordered Rivolution to pay EUR 64,000 in preliminary costs to Cilag. Rivolution appealed the decision, whose reasoning had not yet been issued, and sought suspension of its effectiveness pending the appeal.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning restrictions on access to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications as inadmissible because Sun had not yet lodged a Statement of appeal or paid the appeal fee, which are prerequisites for applying for suspensive effect even in cases of extreme urgency.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 605 534 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, sought leave under Rule 36 RoP to file a further pleading addressing the FRAND objection raised by the defendants (Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş.) for the first time in their statement of defense. The court granted the application, finding that allowing a further pleading on the FRAND issue was warranted for reasons of fairness, equity, efficiency, and the right to be heard, and noted that the defendants would not be prejudiced and no procedural delay would result.
Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED , Dreame Technology AB v.Dyson Technology Limited
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four defendants from the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially granted the application, issuing an injunction against all four defendants with respect to one group of attacked embodiments (the 'Staggered Curling Attachments'), while dismissing the claims regarding the second group ('Curling Attachments'). The court also extended the injunction to the Spanish national part of the patent against Defendants 1 and 3.
Barco N.V. v.Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned Barco N.V.'s application for leave to change its claim and request for exchange of further written pleadings in proceedings related to alleged infringement of EP 3 732 827. The Court of First Instance (Brussels Local Division) had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures for lack of urgency. The Court of Appeal denied Barco's application to introduce a subsidiary claim, finding it broadened the original claim without justification for late amendment, and also rejected Barco's requests for further written pleadings and to disregard portions of Yealink's Statement of response.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This case concerns an application by Ballinno B.V. for the release of a security deposit of EUR 56,000 previously provided under Rule 158 RoP to cover the legal costs of the Defendants in proceedings related to European Patent EP1944067. The underlying provisional measures application had been dismissed, and the Claimant had been ordered to pay costs. Following the termination of appeal proceedings and a settlement agreement between the parties, the Court ordered the release of the security deposit for direct transfer to Kinexon's bank account in accordance with the settlement.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four entities of the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg granted the injunction against the Hong Kong-based manufacturer, the German distributor, and the Swedish affiliate for the UPCA territory, and against the manufacturer and the German Authorized Representative also with respect to Spain, while dismissing the application for the remaining parts.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA
Boehringer Ingelheim, proprietor of European patent EP 1 830 843 covering nintedanib for treating fibrotic diseases including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), sought provisional measures against Zentiva, which held Portuguese marketing authorisations for generic nintedanib products and had completed national pricing and reimbursement procedures. The Lisbon Local Division denied the application, finding no imminent infringement, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that completion of national health technology assessment, pricing and reimbursement procedures can constitute imminent infringement. The Court of Appeal granted a provisional injunction against Zentiva across all UPC territories where the patent is in force, coupled with recurring penalty payments, and ordered Zentiva to pay €199,000 in interim costs.
Orbisk B.V. v.Winnow Solutions Limited
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. Orbisk counterclaimed for revocation. The court found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request) that was not infringed by Orbisk's product, resulting in partial revocation of the patent and an order for Winnow to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerns infringement actions filed by multiple Moderna entities against Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation regarding European Patent No. EP2279254. The defendants filed their Statement of Defence along with a counterclaim for revocation and a request for confidentiality (R.262A Application) on 8 July 2025. The order addresses procedural matters under Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure, including the handling of confidential information in the pleadings submitted by the defendants.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request 3) and held that Orbisk's product did not infringe the patent as so limited. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful, with some claims revoked and others upheld, and Winnow was ordered to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
WhiteWater West Industries Ltd., Endless Surf Ltd., White Water Era GmbH v.Surftown GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 2 728 089 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The Claimant, American Wave Machines, Inc., is involved in infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation against four Defendants. The court amended its prior order of 1 August 2025 to classify certain technical details of the challenged embodiment as confidential and to restrict access to unredacted versions of the parties' briefs and exhibits.
Cisco Systems GmbH , Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order regarding a request for extension of time limits in an appeal concerning EP 2 201 740. Cisco requested a one-month extension to file its response to the appeal and its cross-appeal, while Lionra argued for only one week or ten calendar days. The Court extended the deadline by two weeks, until October 3, 2025, finding that Cisco was entitled to an extension because it had only recently gained access to the unredacted version of Lionra's appeal brief.
Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072 B1. At the joint request of both parties under Rule 321 of the Rules of Procedure, the language of proceedings was changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas in place of legally qualified judge Dr. Thom as rapporteur.
Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a dispute over security for costs in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 670 898. The Defendants (Arthrex entities) requested EUR 3,300,000 in security (EUR 1,100,000 per Defendant), while the Claimant (Syntorr LP) opposed any security order or alternatively requested a reduced amount of EUR 1,000,000–2,000,000, offering to provide security via litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement. The Judge-rapporteur ordered the Claimant to provide EUR 2,000,000 in security by 30 September 2025, either by bank guarantee or deposit into the Court's account, ruling that the Claimant's insurance policy was not adequate security under Rule 158(1) RoP and that an amount exceeding the regular ceiling for recoverable costs was not justified.
CeraCon GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns a request for review of a judge-rapporteur's order that had dismissed CeraCon GmbH's application to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413 by introducing a new novelty attack based on Euro-PCT application EP 3 868 480 A1. The panel confirmed the earlier order, holding that the amendment was excluded under R. 263.2(a) RoP because CeraCon failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the prior art. The request for review was rejected.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO BILLING US CORP., AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.Respondent
The defendants filed an application under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking cost assessment for attorney fees incurred during an appeal proceeding brought by the plaintiffs against an order requiring security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Local Chamber Mannheim held the application inadmissible, ruling that costs arising from the application, opposition, or defense of procedural orders, including security-for-costs orders, cannot be assessed in a separate cost assessment proceeding under Rule 150 RoP but must instead be assessed as part of the overall procedural costs in the cost assessment following the substantive decision.
WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an application by Hurom Co., Ltd. under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect certain cost-related information submitted in connection with its application for a cost decision under Rule 150 et seq. RoP. The information sought to be protected is a breakdown of the hours worked by its legal representatives. The Respondents (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) opposed the request, arguing there was no legitimate interest in confidentiality vis-à-vis them. The legally qualified judge Böttcher, acting as judge-rapporteur, issued the procedural order addressing the confidentiality request.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 252 857. The Claimants (Sanofi and Regeneron) requested a stay of the infringement proceedings and counterclaim for revocation pending the outcome of an appeal in a related case (UPC_CFI_505/2024) concerning patent EP 3 536 712. The Court granted the stay, finding that the infringement question in the present case involves the same factual and legal questions as the related case, and that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, Bodycap, Université de Rennes v.EPO
1 UPC_CFI_628/2025 ORDONNANCE du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet Division Centrale (section de Milan) concernant une Action contre une décision de l’OEB (règle 97 RdP) rendue le 6 août 2025 DEMANDEURS 1) Bodycap 6, rue du docteur Laënnec 14200 -
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 697 391 B1, addressing the Claimant's application under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information. The court classified certain information highlighted in gray in the Defendant's Application for a cost decision as confidential and restricted access to a defined confidentiality club. The Defendant's argument that the number of individuals granted access should correspond to parallel proceedings was rejected.
igus GmbH v.Respondent
This is a default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 912 243 B1. The plaintiff, igus GmbH, a German company based in Cologne, holds the patent directed to a compact cable guide for cleanroom applications with a sheath unit and clamping device. The defendant, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., a Chinese company, failed to appear in the proceedings, leading to the default ruling. The patent was filed on January 14, 2020, granted on March 20, 2024, and granted unitary effect on April 17, 2024.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG, Cybex Retail GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 905 615. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure to jointly hear the patent infringement action brought by Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. against the Cybex entities and the counterclaim for revocation, rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was made for reasons of efficiency and to ensure that validity and infringement are decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.Respondent
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to file further written pleadings in response to the Defendant's Rejoinder. The Judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding it admissible but not well-founded, as the Claimant failed to demonstrate that due process principles required an additional round of written pleadings.
NUC Electronics Co., Ltd v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_162/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 4 August 2025 concerning EP 2 028 981 concerning App_33193/2025 (Request for a penalty payment, R. 354.4 RoP) concerning App_33935/2025 (request for the extens
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning three European patents (EP 3 398 487, EP 3 281 569, and EP 3 610 762) in a dispute between CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (plaintiff) and ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH (defendant). The court addressed the question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the UPC Agreement regarding the handling of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. With the agreement of both parties, the chamber ordered that both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim be heard jointly, citing procedural efficiency and the moderate complexity of the technical subject matter.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 548 898 B1. The applicant Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG sought preliminary measures against respondent BAG Diagnostics GmbH, who challenged both infringement and the validity of the patent. The presiding judge ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel, finding it appropriate given the substantive validity challenges raised by the respondent.
Moderna Norway AS, Moderna, Inc., Moderna Sweden AB, Moderna France SASU, Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Biotech UK Limited, Moderna Germany GmbH, ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA, Moderna v.Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This order concerns a Rule 262A application filed by multiple Moderna entities (Applicants/Defendants in the infringement actions/Claimants in the counterclaims) seeking to designate certain information in their statement of defence/counterclaim for revocation as confidential. The Respondents/Claimants in the infringement action, Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, reached agreement with the Applicants on the members of the confidentiality club and the terms of the confidentiality order. The Local Division The Hague issued the order based on the parties' agreed terms as set out in the confidentiality agreement submitted as exhibit G122.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in cost proceedings related to EP 2 697 391 B1. The court granted the application to classify certain cost information as confidential and established a confidentiality club, granting access to the Defendant's legal representatives, the COO, and the CEO Dr Stephen Fodor, but denying access to a patent agent/consultant due to insufficient justification.
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.