technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 28 of 58 · 1,714 total
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1, brought by Aylo Premium Ltd. against DISH Technologies L.L.C. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought full revocation of the patent, while the Defendant filed a Statement of Defence and an Application to amend the Patent, including auxiliary requests. The headnote establishes that the Court can, if requested, limit the scope of revocation of a European patent to national parts validated in individual UPC Member States, with the key legal issues being added matter and claim interpretation.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
This case concerns a procedural order issued by the Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against five Epson entities regarding European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. Epson France SAS filed an objection under Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure, challenging the court's jurisdiction on the ground that Dolby's withdrawal of its prior opt-out from the jurisdiction of the court was allegedly invalid. The dispute centers on whether Dolby's May 11, 2023 opt-out application, which listed the patent in suit on page 97, was properly withdrawn to bring the patent back under the court's jurisdiction.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Central Division (Munich) in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. The court directed the parties to upload their pleadings in the 'Request for amendment of a patent' workflow in the case management system by June 4, 2025, beginning with the defendant's response of February 28, 2025. The order was issued to allow the plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the reply concerning the patent amendment request of May 22, 2025, while reserving the question of whether a separate request and workflow are required for patent amendments for the interim proceedings or oral hearing.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute. SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 643 717 relating to a color and light mixing collective optic, brought an infringement action against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH. STRABAG had installed LED variable traffic signs at certain locations (A12, VKP Kundl, RFB Innsbruck) that it had sourced from Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., which intervened in support of STRABAG. The Court of Appeal issued an order on May 26, 2025, addressing STRABAG's application for suspensive effect against the first instance decision of January 15, 2025.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court addressed a request by the plaintiff, Grundfos Holding A/S, for correction of obvious inaccuracies in the operative part of its earlier decision of May 8, 2025, against the defendant, Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court found the correction request admissible and well-founded, as it was filed within the one-month deadline and the defendant did not object, and accordingly corrected several paragraphs of the operative order.
Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna France SASU, Moderna Germany GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Biotech Spain SL, Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA v.Genevant Sciences GmbH, Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
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 delivered on 23/05/2025 Moderna, Inc. (Defendant) - 325 Binney Street - MA 02142 - Cambridge - US Statement of claim served on 21/04/2025 Moder
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, Warmcook
This case before the Paris Local Division concerned a patent infringement action brought by Hurom Co., Ltd against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. The court addressed three key issues: the admissibility of amended patent claims (rejecting the defendant's added-matter objection based on alleged intermediate generalization), the procedural framework for objections under Article 34 UPCA regarding the territorial scope of UPC decisions (holding such objections fall outside R.19 RoP), and the claimant's request for infringement remedies in Poland. While the Poland-related claim was admissible following the BSH v Electrolux precedent, the court found it unfounded on the merits due to the claimant's failure to meet its burden of proof regarding specific infringing acts in that territory.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna Biotech UK Limited
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 delivered on 23/05/2025 Moderna, Inc. (Defendant) - 325 Binney Street - MA 02142 - Cambridge - US Statement of claim served on 21/04/2025 Moder
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against Juul Labs International Inc. regarding EP 3 504 991 before the Paris Central Division, which dismissed the action and ordered NJOY to bear the costs. NJOY appealed the cost decision, but subsequently applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP, with Juul Labs' consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 767 151 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Court of First Instance. Both parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure to allow them to focus on finalizing ongoing settlement negotiations. The Judge-rapporteur granted the stay, formalizing the provisional stay that had already taken effect by email on 21 May 2025, and cancelled the oral hearing originally scheduled for 4 June 2025.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The claimant sought to file a further written pleading to respond to new arguments raised by the defendants in their rejoinder, but the judge-rapporteur dismissed this request on 1 April 2025. The claimant then filed an application for review pursuant to R. 333 RoP. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order and rejected the application for panel review, finding the request for a further written submission unfounded.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH
This is an appeal order concerning a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The appellant Knaus Tabbert AG sought to stay enforcement of a first-instance order, arguing that the plaintiffs' financial situation required security for enforcement. The Court of Appeal held that the ordering of security for enforcement lies within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that a defendant must raise facts justifying such security already at first instance, so that a request for suspensive effect generally cannot rely on the plaintiff's financial situation if this could have been raised earlier.
Siemens Healthcare SAS, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V. v.Respondent
Siemens sought an order requiring Hologic to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000 each for the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation) in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 352 431 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the request, holding that Siemens failed to meet its burden of providing evidence of the applicable foreign law and its application regarding enforcement of cost orders in Massachusetts, USA, where Hologic is domiciled.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V. (defendant)
This order rectifies a clerical error in a prior revocation decision concerning European patent EP 1 944 067 B1. The earlier decision had incorrectly referenced the patent as EP 1 994 067 B1 throughout its text. The Court corrected the patent number on its own motion, giving the parties an opportunity to be heard pursuant to Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
Chint appealed an order of the Munich Local Division requiring it to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000 by 6 June 2025, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of JingAo's European patent EP 2 787 541 relating to a solar cell. Chint requested that its appeal have suspensive effect or, alternatively, that the appeal proceedings be expedited. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that Chint had failed to demonstrate that providing security constituted an undue burden or that expedition was warranted.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought the action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and several healthcare distributors. The order addresses an application by Defendants 1, 2, and 6 (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS) for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This case concerns an application by Sun Patent Trust for review of an order concerning interim measures against Roku, Inc. in proceedings involving European Patents EP 2 903 267 and EP 3 200 463. The dispute arose after Roku filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking, among other things, an anti-suit injunction against Sun Patent Trust. The court addressed key questions regarding cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, the necessity of prior cease-and-desist letters before seeking interim measures, and the circumstances under which such warnings are dispensable.
Discord Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 716 655. The defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V., belong to the same group of companies and requested harmonization of time periods for submitting their Statements of Defence and lodging any Counterclaim for Revocation, to which the claimant consented. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 2 July 2025 for both defendants.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This order concerns an application by Dolby International AB for review of a provisional measures order against Roku, Inc. in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The dispute arose after Roku filed a counterclaim for invalidity in the existing infringement proceedings and subsequently initiated a US lawsuit seeking, among other things, an injunction to prevent Dolby from pursuing the UPC action. The court addressed the question of cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, holding that a prior warning (Abmahnung) is not a prerequisite for provisional measures but that its absence may affect cost allocation, particularly when the respondent immediately offers a cease-and-desist declaration.
3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF
Act. no. 18051/2025 UPC CFI no. 342/2025 1 di 20 ACT. NO. 18051/2025 UPC CFI NO. 342/2025 ORDER NO. 21737/2025 TRIBUNALE UNIFICATO DEI BREVETTI TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO ORDINE DI PROTEZIONE DELLE PROVE depositato il 19.5.2025 RICHIEDENTE 3
Greenchemicals S.R.L. v.DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC.
This is a preliminary procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 1 957 544 B1, addressing the Applicant's request to classify certain financial information as confidential under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the confidentiality order, classifying specific financial information in the Applicant's comments and Exhibit HL 15 as confidential, while rejecting the Defendant's arguments that the information was publicly available. Access was limited to the Defendant's representatives and one named administrative employee, with penalties for culpable breach.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA, IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance scheduling proceedings in an infringement action concerning European patent no. 3 812 870. The panel decided not to bifurcate the proceedings and will hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, setting an interim videoconference for 24 March 2026 and an in-person oral hearing in Munich for 18 June 2026.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
Article 53(f) of the UPCA allows the Court to perceive the functionality of the embodiments (patented and attacked) and comprises all activities detailed in Articles 170(1)(c) and 170(2)(f) and (g) of the Rules of Procedure, and therefore, not only inspections. According to Article 53(f) UPCA, the Court may compare the objects of the proceedings (i.e., the patented and attacked objects) by viewing their dynamic functionality. If a party offers to exhibit the object in accordance with Rule 1
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The Claimant, Total Semiconductor, LLC, applied under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its case to include the AM67x product as an additional attacked embodiment, arguing that the Defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had begun offering this new product in Germany after the original Statement of Claim was filed. The Defendants opposed the amendment, contending it could have been made earlier and would unfairly hinder their defence. The Court postponed the final decision on the amendment application until the oral hearing scheduled for 22 and 23 July 2025, while granting the Defendants the opportunity to respond to the amendments in substance.
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH v.Corning Incorporated
The Court of Appeal dismissed a request for discretionary review filed by Hisense, TCL, and LG against an order of the Mannheim Local Division refusing to separate infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 296 274. The defendants had sought separation to prevent the disclosure of sensitive supply chain information among competing companies, citing potential EU competition law conflicts. The Court of Appeal held that separation is not the only means to protect confidential information, as restricted access under R. 262A RoP and confidentiality agreements between parties are available alternatives.
Keysight Technologies, Inc., Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the Claimant, Centripetal Limited, for leave to amend its case pursuant to Rule 263 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant sought leave to introduce new submissions regarding the alleged software solution 'Threat Simulator' and the alleged further gateway component 'ThreatARMOR' as additional attacked embodiments, arguing these were triggered by the Defendants' prior-use right defence. The Defendants (Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH) opposed the application, contending that leave was necessary and should not be granted because the Claimant should have included these submissions in its Statement of Claim given prior US proceedings.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 2 746 957, in which the claimant Total Semiconductor, LLC sought permission to file a further written submission in response to the defendants' rejoinder. The defendants (Texas Instruments entities) opposed the request as an inadmissible repeat of a previously dismissed application. The court held the request admissible due to special circumstances, partially postponed the final decision on admission until the oral hearing, and otherwise rejected the request, granting the claimant two weeks to submit a written pleading strictly limited to the issue of Adaptive Voltage Scaling (AVS) Class 0.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei requested that certain information highlighted in grey in the statement of claim, along with related annexes marked as confidential, be classified as confidential under Article 58 of the EPG Agreement in conjunction with Rules 262.2 and 262A.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich granted the request, ordering that the confidential information be protected from access by the opposing party and the public, and that the defendants not disclose such information to third parties or use it outside the proceedings.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This decision addresses cost assessment proceedings arising from a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. The court examined the defendant's objection that the plaintiff's claimed recoverable representation costs were unreasonable in amount. The court established that a party challenging the reasonableness of costs must provide substantiated factual submissions explaining why the costs are disproportionate in relation to the matter's significance, complexity, and prospects of success.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc. , Amgen GmbH, Amgen Europe B.V., Amgen NV, Amgen S.R.L., Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S.
1. In the case of a second medical use claim, a substance or composition within the mean- ing of Art. 54(4) EPC is used for any specific use which is not comprised in the state of the art. Such a therapeutic use can be a new indication, e.g. a disease not yet treated by the claimed substance, or an indication for a new group of patients. 2. For a finding of infringement of a second medical use claim, the alleged infringer must offer or place the medical product on the market in such way
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.