technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 22 of 58 · 1,714 total
Centripetal Limited v.Respondent
The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Claimant's (Centripetal Limited) request under Rule 36 for a further written pleading in its infringement action against Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The court held that allowing additional briefing would prejudice procedural fairness, disrupt the front-loaded procedure mandated by the Rules of Procedure, and was unnecessary because the functionalities the Claimant sought to newly attack had been known to it for considerable time.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 263 098 B1 in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The court identified ambiguities in the Claimant's submissions regarding the ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning the validity of three alleged patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The Claimant was ordered to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants given until 3 September 2025 to respond.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.Respondent
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application for confidentiality in a patent infringement dispute over EP 2 643 717. The Court of Appeal addressed whether Chainzone, as intervener supporting Strabag, could obtain restrictions on the use and disclosure of Fraunhofer measurement reports that had already been submitted to the Court of First Instance without any prior confidentiality request. The Court held that an application under R. 262A RoP restricting access to or use of information and evidence must be made at the time of filing the document, and a first-time request in appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted at first instance is inadmissible.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Respondent
This is a cost decision by the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court following the dismissal of Alexion Pharmaceuticals' application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's marketing of Epysqli®. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court partially granted the application, recognizing costs for two legal representatives, two patent attorneys, and an expert, but rejecting costs for two English solicitors as not sufficiently justified.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215. Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for certain information, relying on a non-disclosure agreement concluded between the MediaTek group and Huawei on 11 July 2025. Huawei confirmed the NDA and raised no objections to the requested access restrictions. The Local Chamber Munich granted the application in the scope set out in the order, ordering confidentiality measures, exclusion of the public from hearings and judgment pronouncement regarding confidential information, redaction before publication, and exclusion of confidential information from third-party file access.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
3: «Specifications in the description that are not consistent with the granted claims cannot serve as a basis of a broad interpretation of a claim.”) 2- L’admissibilité d’une demande alléguée tardive : En l’espèce, la Cour considère que la demande de contrefaçon par équivalence qui intervient juste après le mémoire en défense n’est pas tardive (au stade du mémoire en réplique), car cette demande ne change pas la nature de la stratégie procédurale du demandeur qui ne fait que l’adapter a
A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_587/2025 UPC_CFI_624/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/08/2025 APPLICANT 1) A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Applicant, Defendant in the main proceedings, hereinafter: “Menarini”) - Via
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1, issued in combined infringement and revocation proceedings. The court identified significant ambiguities in the Claimant's presentation regarding the chain of title and ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning three patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The court ordered the Claimant to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants to respond by 3 September 2025.
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 EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing an application under R. 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information. The court granted the application, classifying certain technical details of the challenged embodiment as confidential, and restricted access to the unredacted versions of the parties' submissions to the Claimant's legal representatives and their internal assistants. The Claimant was also given an opportunity to supplement its submissions regarding the role of a natural person (Mr. [...]) for whom access to the confidential information was requested.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns a cost decision for appeal proceedings before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, relating to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the patent proprietor, had its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's product Epysqli® dismissed at first instance and on appeal, with costs ordered against it. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its appeal costs, and the court partially granted the application, finding that costs for two legal representatives and four patent attorneys were largely reasonable, but disallowing costs for two English solicitors and certain travel expenses.
Anker Innovations (Netherlands) B.V., Anker Technology (UK) Ltd., Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd., Anker Innovations Ltd., Fantasia Trading LLC, Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 in an infringement action brought by Powermat Technologies, Ltd. against multiple Anker entities and Fantasia Trading LLC. The defendants filed a conditional request to stay the infringement proceedings pending the resolution of their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich Local Division. The court postponed its decision on the stay request until after the oral hearing on the merits.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC filed an infringement action against Samsung entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947, titled 'Verifiable device assisted service policy implementation,' alleging that Samsung's mobile devices running Android 7 or higher infringed claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and/or 35. Samsung contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, also seeking to challenge the patent's validity on grounds including added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court held an oral hearing on 20 May 2025 and announced its decision on 1 August 2025, with the outcome indicating the patent was not found valid as granted or as amended.
Novartis AG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA, ZENTIVA K.S.
1. Art. 69 UPCA, by requiring legal costs to be proportionate and reasonable (see also Rule 152.1 RoP), establishes a legal standard that enables the judge-rapporteur to issue a decision on legal costs. One might ask whether this provision is compliant with Art. 8 and 78 UPCA, which provide for a decision to be issued in principle by a panel. It can be assumed that, once a decision on the merits has been taken, the requirements of proceedings efficiency and proportionality prevail (the deci
NEC Corporation v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action (UPC_CFI_487/2023) relating to European patent EP 2 645 714. The order grants an extension of the deadline for both parties to submit comments on a Rule 262.1(b) RoP request, extending it from 30 July 2025 to 12 August 2025 due to the absence of the Claimant's representatives. The order also addresses confidentiality protections for written submissions and exhibits.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This is an infringement action before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 186 428 B2, titled 'Tissue design for protective clothing,' which relates to a fabric structure for protective clothing for emergency forces. TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH, an Austrian manufacturer of firefighting clothing and exclusive licensee of the patent, alleged that Sioen NV, a Belgian company, infringed the patent in Latvia through its '868 – Twin/AS' product and in Portugal through its 'NOMEX SIOEN modelo RSB LX' product. The Court found infringement and granted TEXPORT's claims for a declaration of infringement, injunction, damages, information, recall, destruction, and legal costs, while dismissing all other requests.
Toyota Motor Europe v.Respondent
Central Division Paris Seat Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) delivered on 31. July 2025 ACT 579176/2023 UPC_CFI-361/2023 PARTIES: Claimant: Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA, Avenue du Bourget 60, 1140 Evere, Belgiu
RENAULT SAS v.Respondent
This procedural matter concerns an application by Renault SAS for access to the court register and file of three concluded proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1, in which Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited had sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement. The original infringement action and revocation counterclaim had been terminated following withdrawal permitted by decisions dated 7 January 2025. Renault sought access to review Avago's legal and technical arguments, claim interpretation positions, validity arguments, and patent amendments, while the defendants (Tesla) consented to access to a specific list of pleadings but opposed broader disclosure.
Aesculap AG v.Respondent
This case concerns an order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf regarding European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, owned by Aesculap AG. Following a prior order dated July 10, 2025, which required Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) to cease offering, marketing, or using certain cutting tools for surgical torque-transmitting instruments in Germany and France, and to provide structured information about infringing products, the present order addresses Rule 354 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the threat of coercive measures. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as rapporteur.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France, S.A.S., Samsung Electronics GmbH
Headwater Research LLC brought an infringement action against four Samsung entities concerning European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1, which relates to wireless end-user devices controlling application network access based on background/foreground states. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1 due to added matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Headwater to bear the costs.
N.V. Nutricia v.Respondent
This case before the Local Division Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 359 858 B1, which was finally revoked during the proceedings. The Claimant (N.V. Nutricia) sought closure of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, while the parties disputed the value of the dispute. The Court set the value of the infringement action at €250,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at €500,000, ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of both proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant.
LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., Energy3000 solar GmbH, LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V. v.Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, relating to solar cell technology. The order addresses several procedural matters including a correction to the address on the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, confidentiality measures for information in the statement of defence, and the decision to handle both infringement and validity in the same proceedings. The court granted the defendants' requests for confidentiality protection, amended a prior provisional order, accepted the address correction, and confirmed that both infringement and validity would be decided together.
Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., Energy3000 solar GmbH, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829. The claimants, Jinko entities, brought the action against multiple LONGi entities and other defendants. The Presiding Judge set dates for the interim conference (13 February 2026) and oral hearing (12 May 2026), while noting that proceedings against the fourth defendant would be deferred and the counterclaim would be addressed separately.
Memodo GmbH, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, PowerDeal SRL, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Libra Energy B.V. v.Respondent
Defendants 3 and 5 to 8 in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 065 184 B1 requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP against the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the request, ordering the Claimant to provide EUR 100,000 in security within six weeks, finding that the Claimant's financial difficulties justified the security and that the defendants' share of the amount in dispute was irrelevant when determining the cost ceiling.
Discord Netherlands B.V., Discord Inc. v.Respondent
The Mannheim Local Division dismissed an application by Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. seeking to bar Malikie Innovations Ltd.'s infringement action concerning EP 3 716 655 in relation to Germany. Discord argued that Malikie, lacking a residence or establishment in Germany, had failed to appoint a domestic representative under Sec. 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), rendering the infringement action manifestly bound to fail for Germany under Rules 361 and 362 RoP. The court held that Sec. 25(1) GPA is a German national procedural provision inapplicable to UPC proceedings, and that even if it were applicable, the alleged defect would be remediable rather than irremediable.
Syngenta Limited v.Respondent
This order was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. All parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings in respect of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The presiding judge granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure, with the stay not to be lifted before 30 September 2025, and cancelled the scheduled interim conference and oral hearing dates.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Respondent
DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO UPC_CFI_761/2024 ACT 63992/2024 ACT .24515/2025 Ordinanza Del Tribunale unificato dei Brevetti di primo grado adottata in data 29.7. 2025 KEYWORDS Rule 150 – Separato procedimento per i costi della decisione ROP; Rule 353 – Rettifica delle decisioni e d
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This procedural order was issued by the Local Division Lisbon in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1, brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against ASUSTek Computer Inc. Following a prior order dated 14 July 2025, both parties reached agreement on the appointment of a Technically Qualified Judge and on hearing the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation together. The Court accepted the parties' joint proposal to reschedule the Oral Hearing to 25 March 2026 and issued orders regarding the allocation of a Technically Qualified Judge, the interim conference, and the Oral Hearing.
*** v.Essetre Holding spa
A revocation action was filed against Essetre Holding s.p.a. concerning European Patent No. EP 2 875 923 B1, which relates to a machine for machining walls, particularly walls made of wood or multilayer walls. The claimant argued that the subject-matter of claim 1 lacked novelty over a German patent document (DE 34 12 441 C2) and a YouTube video, and lacked inventive step over the prior art in combination with common general knowledge or additional cited references. The Court addressed the interpretation of the term 'a working surface' in the independent claim, affirming that it should be interpreted as meaning 'one working surface' based on its ordinary meaning and the context of the patent's description and drawings.
Roborock Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants for an extension of time limits in a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 3 030 943. The defendants sought to extend the deadline for filing their opposition under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure to August 26, 2025, and the deadlines for the statement of defense under Rule 23 and the counterclaim for revocation under Rule 25 to October 27, 2025. The plaintiff consented to the extensions, and the presiding judge granted the request.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Respondent
This case concerned an application for provisional measures filed by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in relation to European Patent EP 1 957 544 B1. The applicant withdrew its application for preliminary measures with the defendant's consent, and the court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the applicant.
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.