technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 24 of 58 · 1,714 total
UPC Decision UPC-000538 v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, in Germany and the United Kingdom. The Mannheim Local Division separated the proceedings regarding the UK part of the patent following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court assessed the validity of the UK part as a mere prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect, found the patent invalid, and dismissed the infringement action with costs borne by FUJIFILM.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This Procedural Order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Central Division Milan, on 18 July 2025, managing two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The court addressed the management of bioMérieux's extensive invalidity attacks (approximately 50 attacks based on 16 prior art citations) and directed bioMérieux to narrow its arguments, preferably to three inventive step attacks and specific added matter features. The court also set deadlines for submissions and preliminary cost estimates, and outlined the structure of the upcoming oral hearing.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against Meril Lifesciences and related entities concerning European Patent EP 2 628 464 B1 relating to the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis Myval™ THV. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and proceedings were stayed pending the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal decision, which upheld the patent in amended form. The parties subsequently reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm the settlement agreement by decision, along with partial reimbursement of court fees.
Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Dr Reddy's Srl
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference on 17 July 2025, addresses procedural matters including the timeline for the oral hearing, expert testimony on obviousness, and confidentiality issues regarding interim damages calculations. The court confirmed the oral hearing dates of 14–17 October 2025 and the final interim conference for 12 September 2025.
Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi B.V. v.Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare BV
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 17 July 2025, following an interim conference in consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent n° 2 493 466. The order addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025, expert testimony on obviousness issues related to the Phase III TROPIC study, and confidentiality arrangements regarding interim damages calculations. The claimants are various Sanofi entities, and the defendants comprise four groups: Accord Healthcare entities, STADA entities, Reddy Pharma/betapharm/Dr Reddy's entities, and Zentiva entities.
PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by the first respondent, PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., to postpone the oral hearing scheduled for September 1, 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. The Mannheim Local Chamber denied the postponement request, holding that the inherent urgency of interim measure proceedings requires very special circumstances for a postponement, and that vacation absences of legal and patent attorney representatives do not qualify as such. The court further offered the parties an opportunity to raise objections to the first respondent's participation via video link by July 24, 2025.
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of 2 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 511 174. The defendants (Kodak entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for information they were required to disclose during enforcement. The court rejected the request, holding that the defendants should have raised confidentiality in the main proceedings, that the main decision already restricted use of the information to the stated purposes, and that no specific risk of misuse was demonstrated.
Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s. v.Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning four related infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference, addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of expert testimony via hot tubbing on obviousness issues, confidentiality arrangements regarding Sanofi's damages calculations, and the format of Sanofi's future briefs. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference (12 September 2025) and the oral hearing (14-17 October 2025).
Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADAPHARM GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in patent infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The order addresses pending issues including the awaited written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent at an oral hearing in June 2025), ongoing French appeal proceedings regarding invalidation of the French part of the patent, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference and oral hearing, and addressed procedural matters including confidentiality of interim damages calculations and the format of Sanofi's briefs.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 839 403, in which the defendants (Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.) sought a three-week extension of time to file their rejoinder and reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation. The defendants argued they needed additional time to respond to new technical arguments involving third-party-developed software applications and security environments. The Mannheim Local Division granted the extension, finding justified exceptional circumstances existed, and extended the relevant deadlines to 11 August 2025.
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The provided text contains only a digital signature block attributed to Anja Mittermeier dated July 16, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, case facts, legal arguments, or decision details available for analysis.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
Central Division Paris Seat Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) delivered on 16/07/2025 No. App_25881/2025 UPC_CFI_484/2025 Claimant (Applicant): KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH Schellingstraße 35, 80799 Muni
POSITEC Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Husqvarna AB filed an infringement action on 16 April 2025 against POSITEC Germany GmbH concerning European patent EP 3978304 before the Local Division Düsseldorf. POSITEC subsequently applied on 23 June 2025 to change the language of the proceedings from German to English under Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP, citing the linguistic profile of its parent group's legal and technical staff and the burden of conducting proceedings in German. Husqvarna opposed the application and requested its dismissal. The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order on 16 July 2025 addressing the language of the proceedings, establishing that fairness requires consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the defendant's working environment and communication channels.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech SE, Promosome LLC, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer AB, Pfizer SAS v.Promosome LLC, The Scripps Research Institute
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the BioNTech and Pfizer defendants for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The court rejected the requests, finding that the confidential information was already protected by an existing confidentiality order dated 10 March 2025, and that the information related to license agreements between the Claimant and the patent proprietor, who were already aware of it. The decision on a request to hold oral hearings behind closed doors was deferred to the oral hearing itself.
MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU, VALINEA ENERGIE
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 15 juillet 2025 concernant une demande de révision d’une ordonnance de conservation des preuves EN-TETE (i) Lors de l’examen de la demande de conservation des preuves, la Juridiction exerce son pouvoir d’ap
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.Respondent
Divisione Locale di Milano ORDINANZA del Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti Tribunale di primo grado Divisione Locale di Milano depositata il 15.7.2025 RICORRENTE PIRELLI TYRE s.p.a. RESISTENTI 1. KINGTYRE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH 2. TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD. Brevetto In
UPC Decision UPC-000554 v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich scheduling a further interim hearing on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory licensing) in a patent infringement action brought by Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. against ASUSTek entities concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The presiding judge ordered an in-person hearing in English on July 21, 2025, to be held entirely in private due to the confidential nature of the FRAND topics to be discussed. The parties were directed to submit a participant list by July 18, 2025.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A., bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application by the Defendants (bioMérieux) for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in an infringement action regarding EP 2 726 883. The court classified certain information in the Statement of defence and Exhibits BB 6–9 as confidential, including peptide sequences, analyses, results, supplier documents, and technical specifications, while restricting access to a defined list of representatives and personnel. The Defendants' request for confidentiality protection regarding Exhibit 10 was rejected, though access to its unredacted version was delayed by one week.
VALINEA ENERGIE SASU v.TIRU SAS
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 15 juillet 2025 concernant une demande de révision d’une ordonnance de conservation des preuves EN-TETE (i) Lors de l’examen de la demande de conservation des preuves, la Juridiction exerce son pouvoir d’
SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD. v.Respondent
1 di 5 Divisione Locale di Milano UPC CFI n. 770/2024 Act. n. 64425/2024 App. n. 26266/2025 ordinanza n. 26742/2025 depositata il 14.7.2025 ATTORE Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. CONVENUTI 1) Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber co. Ltd. 2) China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automot
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This is a procedural order issued in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. Following an interlocutory hearing held on July 11, 2025, the presiding judge set the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000, reserved the decision on the admissibility of a particular annex for the oral hearing, and scheduled the oral hearing for October 16, 2025. The order also addressed procedural matters regarding patent amendment requests and the applicable cost ceiling.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Peter Hendrik Blok Digitally signed by Peter Hendrik Blok Date: 2025.07.12 11:06:47 +02'00' Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:09:50 +02'00' EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:11:2
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Peter Hendrik Blok Digitally signed by Peter Hendrik Blok Date: 2025.07.12 11:07:34 +02'00' Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:13:46 +02'00' EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:14:09
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 June 2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr Ralph Nack, Dr Nic
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division. The Court held that OTEC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, as it did not establish that the impugned order contained manifest errors or violated fundamental procedural rights.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc.
Nera Innovations Ltd., an Ireland-based patent licensing company, sued several entities of the Xiaomi group for infringement of European Patent EP 2 642 632 B1, which protects wireless energy receivers, based on the use of such devices in smartphones including the Xiaomi 13 Pro and Xiaomi POCO F5 Pro 5G. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the patent proprietor defended the patent in auxiliary requests. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed, among other things, the admissibility of a high number of auxiliary requests with a narrow core, the prohibition of intermediate generalization under Article 123(2) and (3) EPC, and the relevance of a prior art citation concerning near-field communication antenna tuning as opposed to wireless power receivers.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, with Aesculap AG as claimant and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) as defendant. The order addressed two procedural questions: how to treat a defendant's absence from the oral hearing when it had previously informed the Registry of its non-attendance, and what level of specificity is required when contesting the claimant's substantiated infringement allegations. The Court ruled that a non-appearing defendant who had informed the Registry would be treated as relying solely on its written submissions, and that defendants must specifically address the claimant's concrete factual allegations rather than relying on general statements about the burden of proof.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Respondent
This preliminary order was issued in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2437696, owned by Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. The Claimant sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its case, requesting that its infringement claims be based on the B2 version of the patent rather than the B1 version originally referenced in the Statement of Claim. The Judge-Rapporteur dismissed the application as devoid of purpose, reasoning that under Article 68 EPC, the B2 version had retroactive effect from the original grant date, meaning the B2 text was always the operative version. The revised Statement of Claim reflecting the correct B2 text was admitted into the proceedings.
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.FUJIFILM Corporation
This is a cost decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. FUJIFILM Corporation had sued three Kodak entities for patent infringement in Germany and the United Kingdom, and the Kodak entities had filed counterclaims for revocation. On 28 January 2025, the court revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered FUJIFILM to bear the costs. The Defendants then applied for a cost decision, which the court largely granted, awarding reimbursement of representation costs, travel expenses, and other costs, while disallowing certain expert and barrister costs as well as costs for the cost proceedings themselves.
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.