technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 23 of 51 · 1,511 total
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
The Walt Disney group of companies and BAMTech LLC (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) filed an application requesting a change of the language of proceedings from German to English before the Local Division Mannheim. The underlying infringement action was brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. based on European Patent EP2465265 concerning methods and apparatus for improved intra chroma encoding and decoding. The President of the Court of First Instance considered the application under Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP, weighing the respective interests of the parties and consulting the panel of the Local Division Mannheim.
Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) v.Aesculap AG
This procedural order concerns the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel in interim proceedings involving European Patent No. EP 2 892 442 B1. The applicant Aesculap AG sought interim measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and the respondent challenged the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found it necessary and appropriate to supplement the panel with a technically qualified judge at the interim stage, given the substantive validity challenges raised and the likelihood that such a judge would also be needed in parallel main proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation, proprietor of European patent EP 4 201 327 relating to fluid delivery devices (insulin patch pumps), sought provisional measures against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for allegedly infringing the patent with its EOPatch and GlucoMen Day Pump products. The Milan Central Division (Court of First Instance) rejected the application, finding claim 1 likely lacked novelty. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the Court of First Instance improperly delegated claim construction to an expert, and granted the provisional measures against EOFLOW across multiple UPC Contracting Member States.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.Respondent
In an appeal from a revocation action concerning EP 3 498 115, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs, with the agreement of NJOY. The stay was ordered pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where oral proceedings had been scheduled for 17 October 2025. The court found that a decision from the Boards of Appeal could be expected rapidly relative to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Anker Innovations (Netherlands) B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order was issued by the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action brought by Powermat Technologies, Ltd. concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 against six Anker-related entities and Fantasia Trading LLC. The dispute concerned the establishment of uniform service dates and time periods for all defendants. The court granted the parties' joint request to set a uniform service date of 30 April 2025 for all defendants, with preliminary objection deadlines ending on 30 May 2025 and statement of defence deadlines ending on 30 July 2025.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's request to replace three of nine members of the confidentiality club established under Rule 262A RoP in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 476 616. The defendants (Kodak entities) opposed the request, arguing that the circle of persons with access to confidential information should not be expanded. The Mannheim Local Division allowed the request in part, permitting two replacements whose substitutes already had access to confidential information from parallel proceedings, but rejecting the third replacement.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Court addressed the Defendant's late application to make a sample available for inspection, noting that the Defendant had not provided reasons for submitting the sample after the closure of written proceedings and only one week before the hearing. The Court indicated it was considering disregarding the late submission under R. 9.2 RoP and would decide on the issue at the oral hearing.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
The judgment text is not available as the order has been temporarily removed and is to be replaced. No factual details, arguments, reasoning, or outcome can be extracted from the provided text.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS, Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, Gucci Logistica S.p.A.
AGFA NV, a Belgium-based company specializing in industrial inkjet technology, sued nine European entities belonging to the French luxury conglomerate Kering (including Guccio Gucci S.p.A. and related companies) in connection with European Patent EP 3 388 490 B1 titled 'Decorating Natural Leather.' The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in its entirety. The Local Division Hamburg addressed key issues including the scope of counterclaim attacks under Articles 32(1)(e) and 65(1) UPCA, claim interpretation using the patent as its own lexicon, and the admissibility of late-filed validity arguments and prior art documents introduced for the first time at the oral hearing.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V, The Walt Disney Company Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application under Rule 323 RoP by the Defendants (various Disney entities and BAMTech) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action based on European Patent EP2449782. The Claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., had initiated proceedings on 3 February 2025. The order addresses the procedural requirements for hearing all potentially affected parties before a language change can be granted, and clarifies that changing the language to the language of the patent does not conflict with the Claimant's initial choice under R. 14.1 RoP.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This order concerns an application by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in defending against ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision in a patent revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court confirmed its prior reasoning that an application to set aside a default decision is an internal procedural remedy not suitable for a decision on the merits, and therefore does not require a separate decision on costs. The Court held that such costs can be claimed and assessed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation proceedings that concluded with the default decision.
Scandit Inc, Scandit AG v.Respondent
Hand Held Products Inc. brought an infringement action against Scandit AG and Scandit Inc. concerning European Patent EP4163816, and Scandit filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before substantive adjudication, the parties reached a settlement and both filed applications to withdraw their respective claims. The Local Division in The Hague granted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by each claimant.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG M
ArcelorMittal filed an infringement action on 18 October 2024 before the Paris Local Division against multiple XPENG entities and related automotive distributors based on European Patent EP3290200 concerning coated steel strips. On 7 April 2025, following a settlement, ArcelorMittal applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP and requested reimbursement of 60% of the procedural fees paid. The defendants confirmed the settlement and requested a stay of proceedings under Rule 295 RoP.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH filed an application for a cost decision against Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, seeking reimbursement of EUR 112,300.00. The respondents objected to the amount, certain travel expenses, and requested a stay of proceedings pending an appeal against the decision on the merits. The Court rejected the request for a stay, holding that the mere existence of a pending appeal does not justify suspending cost proceedings, as this would allow the unsuccessful party to indefinitely delay cost decisions.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.Respondent
In an action for revocation, where both parties agreed to a stay, the appeal proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where the opposition proceedings could be expected to result in a final decision before or just after, in any case rapidly, in relation to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Asustek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.) under Rules 262A and 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to certain confidential documents (referred to as 'Asustek Confidential Documents') in proceedings involving alleged infringement of European patent EP3076673. The Defendants sought to limit access to the unredacted versions of these documents to a defined circle of individuals, including the Claimant's authorized representatives, one private licensing/valuation expert, and one named natural person from the Claimant. The Claimant filed a response to the application, and the judge-rapporteur issued a preliminary order granting the Claimant time to file comments.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a dispute between Nera Innovations Ltd. and several Xiaomi entities regarding European Patent EP2642632. The defendants sought to have the plaintiff's arguments regarding the patentability of auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A, raised in the reply to the patent amendment request, disregarded as late-filed under Rule 9.2 RoP. The court rejected the defendants' request, holding that when auxiliary requests combine previously explained auxiliary requests, a reference to those earlier explanations in the patent amendment request is sufficient, and that merely deepening submissions in the reply does not constitute late filing.
Stanley Black & Decker Inc. , Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3953541, owned by Viking Arm AS, which initiated an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the same patent. The parties subsequently reached a mutual agreement to discontinue the proceedings, with Viking Arm withdrawing the infringement action and Stanley withdrawing the counterclaim for revocation.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 498 115, citing its direct interest as a party to parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings against the same patent. Juul Labs and NJOY objected, arguing the request was overly broad and risked undermining confidentiality. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents already in the casefile, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts until the appeal is closed, while dismissing the remainder of the request.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading Limited's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in appeal proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 430 921, which arose from a revocation action between Juul Labs International Inc. and NJOY Netherlands B.V. The Court found Nicoventures had a direct interest as a party to related validity proceedings. Access was granted subject to a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts, such as the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the appeal is concluded.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to all written pleadings and evidence in appeal proceedings (APL_322/2025) concerning the revocation action over EP 3 504 991, in which NJOY Netherlands B.V. is the appellant and Juul Labs International, Inc. is the respondent. The Court of Appeal held that written pleadings or evidence added to the casefile before a party commented on the request can be covered by a decision granting access, but blanket requests for future documents are not admissible. Immediate access was granted based on Nicoventures' reasoned request and its status as a party to concrete legal proceedings concerning the validity of the patent at issue, subject to conditions protecting the integrity of proceedings.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH, for an extension of deadlines under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement and revocation counterclaim case concerning European Patent EP 3 770 330 B1. The court granted the extension, finding that the USB stick containing key exhibits (MW 3 to 5, MW 17, and MW 27) was only served on the plaintiff on April 15, 2025, nearly two weeks after the defendant's submissions, constituting an exceptional circumstance justifying the relief. The deadlines for the plaintiff's reply to the infringement defense and response to the revocation counterclaim were extended from May 28, 2025 to June 16, 2025.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 DECISION AU FOND du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/04/2025 DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-gil, Pauline Debré Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Laetitia Nicolazzi Gyeongg
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Memodo GmbH, PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, in which the court addressed the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, rather than separating them, citing reasons of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in preparation for an oral hearing in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., allege infringement against multiple defendants in the AYLO group and related entities. The order confirms the hearing dates of May 7-8, 2025, and raises preliminary questions regarding the formulation of the plaintiffs' claims, particularly whether the alleged infringing embodiments have been sufficiently identified and whether the plaintiffs seek cumulative or sequential examination of the multiple streaming services attributed to the defendants.
Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Maxell, Ltd. against five Samsung entities regarding European patent No. 2 403 266. Samsung filed a Rule 9 application seeking a uniform deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all Defendants, citing disparate actual service dates and anticipated delays in serving the Korean Defendant. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 5 August 2025 for all Defendants and instructing the Registry to enter 5 May 2025 as the virtual service date for all Defendants.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.Alpina Coffee Systems GmbH
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns an application for the protection of trade secrets and confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court classified certain financial information submitted by the defendant — including employee numbers, annual revenue, and annual balance sheet totals — as confidential. Access to this information on the plaintiff's side was restricted to the plaintiff's external attorney and its Chief Financial Officer.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_537/2024 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/03/2025 APPLICANTS 1) Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Defendant) - 11-1 Hokotate-cho, Kamitoba, Minami-ku - 601-8501 - Kyoto - JP Represented by Johannes Heselberger
bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) UPCA to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, where a revocation action was already pending, while proceeding with the infringement action. The Claimant requested the referral and the Defendants did not object, leading the Panel to treat the matter as a unanimous request.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_687/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
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.