technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 27 of 58 · 1,714 total
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 05.06.2025 KLÄGERIN PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG, Flachsmarktstraße 8-28, 32825 Blomberg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Rechtsanwalt Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte, Ismaninger Stra
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
In principle, the costs of the proceedings are not covered by confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP or by the attorney-client privilege unless they are specifically indicative of the company's financial capacity, its commercial strategy, or the importance of the patent as a corporate asset. Applying these principles, confidentiality as a general principle might also be granted to costs incurred by companies for legal services relating to litigation and patent protection, since this informatio
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 05.06.2025 KLÄGERIN PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG, Flachsmarktstraße 8-28, 32825 Blomberg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Rechtsanwalt Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte, Ismaninger Stra
Hybridgenerator ApS v.Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, ***
This appeal concerned the composition of the Court when adjudicating on a request for the imposition of periodic penalty payments under R. 354.4 RoP. The Court of Appeal held that such a request must be adjudicated by a panel, not by a single judge. The appeal was brought by Hybridgenerator ApS against an order of the Copenhagen Local Division dated 3 March 2025, which had declined to impose penalty payments on the Respondents in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 238 202.
Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Germany GmbH, Moderna Norway AS, Moderna Sweden AB, ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Biotech Spain SL, Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Biotech UK Limi v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 04/06/2025 APPLICANT/S – DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGSIN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 1) Moderna, Inc. 325 Binney Street - MA 02142 Cambridge
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by 10x Genomics to modify a confidentiality order issued on 11 March 2024 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Applicant sought to replace two named paralegals in the confidentiality club who were no longer available, and alternatively to expand the club to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings. The Court allowed the substitution of the two unavailable paralegals with a new paralegal and a foreign language correspondent, but rejected the broader request to expand the confidentiality club.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning Meril's applications under Rule 353 RoP for rectification of the court's decision of 4 April 2025 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 669 828 (titled 'Prosthetic Heart Valve'). The court granted rectification of five items (1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) relating to corrections of claim references, a date error, translation errors in operative orders, and the claims asserted, but dismissed the remaining three items (4, 5, and 6) as unfounded.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation requested the Mannheim Local Division to issue a warning to the Kodak defendants that non-compliance with the information orders in the judgment of 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023) concerning EP 3 511 174 would result in penalties of up to EUR 30,000 per day. The court rejected the application, holding that the panel had explicitly decided in the main decision not to set a fixed time period for information provision or a penalty amount up-front, and that such matters would be addressed in a subsequent application to impose penalties.
Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 643 717, in which the plaintiff Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. sued defendant Yunex GmbH. Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd applied to intervene in support of the defendant's request to dismiss the infringement claim. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant objected to the intervention, and the presiding judge granted the intervention application, rendering the prior invitation to intervene moot.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal by Tandem Diabetes against a decision of the Central Division Paris dated 18 December 2024, which had dismissed their revocation action concerning EP 2 196 231 (a patent relating to a system for ambulatory drug infusion) and ordered Tandem Diabetes to bear the costs. Following the filing of the appeal, the parties informed the Court of Appeal that they had concluded the proceedings by way of settlement. The Court of Appeal confirmed the settlement pursuant to Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered that each party bear its own costs.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) to classify certain information as confidential under Rule 262A RoP of the Rules of Procedure. The information in question was previously ordered to be provided to the claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.) by a decision of the Local Division Mannheim dated 11 March 2025. The defendants argue that the information contains highly confidential business secrets and have simultaneously lodged an appeal seeking suspensive effect. The claimant opposes the confidentiality request, seeking either dismissal of the request or, alternatively, broader access to the unredacted exhibits for additional named employees.
XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) regarding the competence of the Court under the UPC Agreement. The dispute centers on whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear claims relating to acts of infringement that occurred before the entry into force of the UPCA, and the effect of an opt-out and subsequent withdrawal on the Court's competence. The appellants (XSYS entities) challenged the competence of the Court, while the respondent (Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH) argued that the UPC has jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal addressed the temporal scope of Art. 32(1) UPCA, the transitional regime under Art. 83 UPCA, and the implications of opt-out withdrawals.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
This order concerns a joint request by all parties to stay proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure in relation to one of two patents at issue. Dainese S.p.A. had filed an infringement action against Alpinestars and other defendants concerning EP '117 and EP '364, with counterclaims for revocation filed against both patents. Following an EPO Board of Appeal decision maintaining EP '117 in amended form, Dainese withdrew its infringement claims regarding EP '117, leaving only the revocation counterclaim pending. The Court held that when all parties jointly request a stay under Rule 295(d), the Court has no discretion and must order the stay, and granted the stay solely in respect of EP '117 while allowing proceedings concerning EP '364 to continue.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought an action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. The court issued a decision confirming a settlement reached between the plaintiffs and defendants 1) and 2) (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, ordering confidential treatment of the settlement details and basing the cost decision on the settlement provisions.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S, Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3 175 863. The order addresses the coordination of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation, setting key dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure. The panel also requested the appointment of a technically qualified judge in the field of biotechnology.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288, following an interim video hearing held on May 28, 2025. The dispute involves infringement claims by Heraeus against Vibrantz and a counterclaim for revocation. The order addresses procedural matters including the consolidation of formal requests, the admissibility of the revocation counterclaim for Germany, and the handling of late defendant submissions on factual and legal issues.
Versah LLC v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Versah LLC regarding European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew its claims against the second defendant, Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, following an out-of-court settlement. Both parties agreed that each would bear their own costs, and the court formally approved the partial withdrawal and terminated the proceedings against that defendant.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by the plaintiff, Lionra Technologies Ltd., for retroactive extension of time limits under Rule 9.3(a) RoP, alternatively for reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP, after missing the deadline under Rule 151 RoP for filing a cost submission application. The plaintiff argued that an experienced legal assistant from the litigation secretariat of its representative's law firm overlooked and failed to note the deadline, despite it being listed in a deadline overview specifically maintained for UPC proceedings. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed the legal question of whether a missed deadline can only be remedied by an application for reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP, which takes precedence over Rule 9.3 RoP, and clarified the autonomous interpretation of the standard of care required under Rule 320.1 RoP.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 4 108 413. The court clarified that the claimant validly chose English as the language of the proceedings by filing its statement of claim in English and designating English pursuant to Art. 49(2) UPCA, since English is the language of the patent-in-suit and the claimant alleged infringement in multiple member states.
Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This case concerned an appeal and cross-appeal against an order of the Local Division Munich dated December 17, 2024, regarding coercive fines imposed on Belkin for non-compliance with an information obligation under Article 67(1) EPGÜ. The Court of Appeal addressed five key legal questions relating to the setting of deadlines for providing information, the imposition of coercive fines even after belated compliance, the burden of proof regarding compliance, the scope of required disclosures (including manufacturer prices), and the permissible form of the information. The Court issued five guiding principles clarifying the procedural framework for enforcing information orders and the conditions for imposing coercive fines.
Visibly Inc. v.Respondent
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP3918974, brought a patent infringement action against Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg. Visibly requested that the Defendants provide security for procedural costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure, citing the Defendants' weak financial position. The Court ordered the Defendants to jointly provide security in the amount of EUR 75,000 within four weeks, finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate after balancing the competing interests.
Genentech INC., F.Hoffmann – La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shangai Henlius Biotech INC
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (the proprietors of EP 3 401 335 B1, relating to pharmaceutical formulations of HER2 antibodies used in Perjeta®) applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection against Organon entities and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc., who are preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to inspect the defendants' premises and preserve evidence of alleged patent infringement, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the evidence obtained.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited seeking full revocation of European Patent No. EP 3 655 346 B1, which relates to a pressure pack dispenser for dispensing viscous materials using a composite piston. The claimant argued that the patent lacked industrial application because the claimed invention would not comply with generally accepted laws of physics. The defendant, as patent proprietor, sought to defend the patent and proposed auxiliary requests to amend it. The Court addressed issues of industrial application under Article 57 EPC, the role of drawings in claim interpretation, and the proper order for addressing multiple auxiliary requests.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 4 074 373 B1 brought by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. against three Advanced Bionics entities. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement, and the plaintiff requested admission of the withdrawal of the action with the defendants' consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and declined to order reimbursement of court fees due to extraordinary circumstances.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.
UPC Decision UPC-000670 v.Respondent
- Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. - A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightfo
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This case concerns a review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure of an ex parte order for evidence preservation and inspection issued on February 3, 2025. The applicant, Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG, sought evidence preservation measures against ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH in connection with European Patent EP 3 083 107. The respondent challenged the order, arguing that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of patent infringement and the risk of loss of evidence. The court rejected the respondent's request to lift the order, finding that the applicant had presented all reasonably available evidence to support its claim of patent infringement.
CENTRIPETAL LIMITED v.PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This is an order issued by the Court of Appeal concerning an application for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Article 60 UPCA. The order sets out general legal principles regarding the standard of proof required for such applications, the distinction between preservation of evidence proceedings and merits proceedings, and the need to balance the applicant's interest in effective enforcement against the defendant's fundamental rights. The text provided contains only the headnotes of the decision and is cut off before the full reasoning and operative part are disclosed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 4 050 804. The court determined that the value in dispute had been largely underestimated given the commercial scope of the action, which targeted all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of the defendants and involved a FRAND rate discussion. The value of the infringement action was set to €4,000,000 on a preliminary basis, requiring the claimant to pay an additional advance on fees of €26,000.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.Respondent
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
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.