technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 28 of 51 · 1,511 total
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS, ***
This case concerns European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1 and involves a dispute over the release of evidence-secured CAD files to the applicant and the collection of penalty payments. The applicant, Hybridgenerator ApS, had obtained an evidence preservation order from the Local Division in Copenhagen on August 26, 2024, which was executed by the bailiff court in Svendborg on August 30, 2024. However, the evidence preservation was not completed because the respondents refused to provide usernames and passwords to their cloud-based economic system (e-conomics) and email, in violation of the Court's order.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action against Juul Labs International, Inc. seeking revocation of European Patent No. EP 3 504 989. Juul Labs filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence based on alleged misidentification, which was rejected and confirmed on appeal. Juul Labs also filed an application to amend the patent and pursued 8 auxiliary requests. The oral hearing was held on 21 November 2024, and the Court delivered its decision on 28 February 2025.
International N&H Denmark ApS, Virdia Inc. v.Respondent
This is a revocation action before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The originally-named defendant, Virdia Inc., applied to substitute itself with International N&H Denmark ApS, to whom the patent had been assigned in 2024. The claimant agreed to the substitution, and the court granted the application, ordering that International N&H Denmark ApS replace Virdia Inc. as defendant and be bound by the proceedings as constituted.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.Respondent
The Claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 742 231 by adding the Netherlands to the list of countries for which infringement was asserted and an injunction sought. The court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Respondent
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. filed a revocation action against Dyson Technology Limited's European Patent EP 2043492 before the Central Division Milan. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, prompting the claimant to request withdrawal of the revocation action and closure of proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 12,000) to the claimant.
Fapa Vital AG v.Respondent
Fapa Vital AG filed an application for provisional measures against Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP 1 978 949 before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement, the Applicant withdrew the application and requested reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees. The Court declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of EUR 6,600 (60% of the EUR 11,000 total Court fees), applying Rule 370.9(b) RoP by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG, Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns two consolidated proceedings involving Heraeus Electronics and Heraeus Precious Metals as plaintiffs against Vibrantz GmbH regarding alleged infringement of European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation) in Germany, Italy, and France. The order addresses the correction of a prior order from December 2, 2024 regarding the replacement of the counter-defendant in the revocation counterclaim proceedings, and considers an application under Rule 362 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the German part of the patent. Vibrantz had raised objections regarding the timeliness and standing of the replacement request.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the defendant's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to file a further pleading in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant sought to introduce a January 6, 2025 decision of the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office, which fully invalidated the corresponding Chinese patent CN201480013981.1 based on the same prior art references. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf, through Presiding Judge Thomas acting as Rapporteur, denied the application, finding it was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese decision without justification, that the decision was submitted only in Chinese rather than the German procedural language, and that allowing late submission would prejudice both the court's and the plaintiff's preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.
GISELA MAYER GmbH v.Respondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 26/02/2025 Concernant une demande en garantie des frais (Règle 158 Rdp) REQUÉRANT - DEFENDEUR GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsdorfer Straße 3 87700 - Memmingen
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the review of the amount of court fee reimbursement following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions and counterclaims after an out-of-court settlement. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees, but the presiding judge as rapporteur had granted only 40%, reasoning that the withdrawals occurred after the completion of the written procedure. Panasonic argued that the parties had not been informed of the completion of the written procedure before withdrawing. The panel confirmed the rapporteur's orders, maintaining the 40% reimbursement.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerned a fee refund dispute following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and counterclaims after an out-of-court settlement. The parties requested a 60% refund of court fees, but the presiding judge initially granted only 40% under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff sought review to obtain the higher 60% refund, and the defendants joined this request. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the 40% refund, holding that the complex and intensively pursued nature of the dispute constituted an exceptional case under Rule 370.9(e).
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This decision concerns the assessment of costs for first instance and appeal proceedings in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Munich. The applicants (Bruker Spatial Biology, Luxendo GmbH, and Bruker Nederland B.V.) sought cost assessment of €337,431.50 against the respondents (10x Genomics, Inc. and NanoString Technologies Inc.) following the Court of Appeal's rejection of the respondents' application for interim measures. The court addressed key procedural questions regarding the admissibility of cost assessment applications after summary proceedings, the nature of cost orders in interim measure proceedings, and the binding effect of the one-month deadline under Rule 151.
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Biolitec, the proprietor of European patent EP 3 685 783, sought provisional measures against the Lightguide companies for alleged patent infringement. The Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) refused the provisional measures by order of 5 September 2024. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld this refusal, finding that Biolitec had not demonstrated that provisional measures were necessary because proceedings on the merits could be awaited, and that the requested measures would change a market status quo established years before the patent's grant.
Scandit AG v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 866 051. The order addresses case management matters following an interim hearing held on February 21, 2025, including the valuation of the infringement claim and counterclaim, procedural questions regarding late submissions, and scheduling for further proceedings.
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought a preliminary injunction against Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg, alleging that Speed Care's SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing infringed European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1, which protects clay-based hemostatic agents and devices. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by claim 1 of the patent in suit, and therefore could not establish infringement.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH v.SES-imagotag SA
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns court fees for the appeal instance, an application for a default decision, and an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision. The underlying dispute involves EP 3 883 277, where VusionGroup's application for interim measures against the Hanshow companies was rejected by the Local Division Munich, with VusionGroup ordered to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues regarding the cost determination application and the admissibility of the appeal.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
Procedural order concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in which the Local Division Düsseldorf addressed the Applicant's request to exchange a deposited enforcement security of EUR 2,000,000 with a bank guarantee. The Court found the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Registrar to repay the deposit to the Applicant, subject to the expiry of the review period.
Bhagat Textile Engineers (Bhagat) v.Respondent
Bhagat Textile Engineers applied for access to documents and written submissions in a revocation counterclaim filed by Himson Engineering Private Limited against Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP214548. Bhagat sought the documents to substantiate a renewed request for suspension of its appeal in a parallel infringement action. The Milan Local Division denied the application, finding that the information was obtainable through other channels and that granting access would compromise the integrity of the proceedings.
Cretes NV v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the streamlining of parallel infringement and revocation proceedings between CRETES NV (plaintiff/counterclaim defendant) and HYLER BV (defendant/counterclaim plaintiff) relating to European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152. The Court addresses a general procedural request filed by CRETES under Rule 9 RoP regarding the alignment of deadlines between the infringement action (UPC_CFI_216/2024) and the revocation counterclaim (UPC_CFI_556/2024). Both parties had previously agreed that the date of notification of the Statement of Defence (September 16, 2024) would serve as the determining date for deadlines in both proceedings.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of the court file under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in a preliminary evidence preservation proceeding relating to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The patent holder SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. raised no objection, noting that Chainzone had already been admitted as an intervenor in related proceedings before the Local Chamber Vienna. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering that file inspection be provided subject to redaction of personal data to be identified by SWARCO within ten days.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a revocation counterclaim related to European Patent No. 2 043 492 before the Local Chamber Munich. Dyson Technology Limited sought leave to withdraw its infringement action, while SharkNinja sought leave to withdraw its revocation counterclaim, with both parties confirming they had reached an out-of-court settlement and waiving their respective claims. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared both proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to each side.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
Aarke AB appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding it had infringed EP 1 793 917 and granting an injunction. Before the appeal was decided, Aarke applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP and sought reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision was necessary since Sodastream filed no comments or cost requests, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Aarke.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Network System Technologies LLC (NTS) for the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions against AUDI AG. The Court of Appeal had previously ordered NST to provide security for costs totaling EUR 500,000 across three proceedings. After NTS withdrew the infringement actions and the Munich Local Division closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full release and return of the deposited security amounts.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S Machinery B.V.
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_16/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/02/2025 APPLICANT Mammoet Holding B.V. (Applicant) - Karel Doormanweg 47 - 3115 JD - Schiedam - NL Represented by Ricardo Dijkstra RELEVA
Dyson Technology Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both parties informed the court that they had reached an out-of-court settlement and consented to the withdrawal of their respective claims, waiving all asserted claims. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals and ordered that each party receive a 60 percent refund of the court fees for their respective actions.
Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing the Claimant's request under Rule 9.3 ROP for an extension of time periods. The court denied the main request for a three-week extension but granted a one-week extension, taking into account the Chinese New Year holidays affecting Defendants 1, 2, and 4's parent company in China. The relevant time limits were extended until 3 March 2025 for all Defendants to maintain harmonisation.
POSCO v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by POSCO, a member of the public, seeking inspection of written pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against multiple XPENG group companies and their European distributors based on European Patent EP 3 290 200. POSCO, which has filed an opposition against the same patent at the European Patent Office, argued that access to the case file is necessary to analyze ArcelorMittal's claim interpretation in the UPC proceedings, which is directly relevant to the validity discussion in the parallel EPO opposition appeal. The XPENG defendants left the decision to the discretion of the Court.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order in evidence preservation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717, owned by SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. SWARCO alleged that Yunex GmbH had installed patent-infringing collective optics manufactured by Shenzhen Dianming Tech Co., Ltd in LED display panels deployed in the city of Mönchengladbach. The order addressed the procedural question of how to handle the mootness (Erledigung) of an evidence preservation application, holding that Rules 360 and 198.1 of the Rules of Procedure apply analogously, and reserving the cost decision to the main proceedings.
Nokia Technologies Oy ao v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd ao
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on February 19, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patents EP 2 243 229 and EP 3 799 333, following an oral hearing on February 18, 2025. The applicants, two Nokia group entities responsible for managing and licensing Nokia's patent portfolio, sought provisional measures against three Chinese respondents (Shanghai Sunmi Technology, Sunmi Technology (Yunnan), and Shangtian Technology (Shanghai)) ahead of the EuroCIS trade fair in Düsseldorf. The order establishes key legal principles regarding the imminence of patent infringement, particularly in the context of anti-suit injunctions, and addresses the conditions under which security for provisional measures may be exceptionally omitted.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems GmbH
Lionra Technologies Ltd., an Irish patent licensing company, sued Cisco Systems GmbH and its US parent Cisco Systems, Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 201 740 B1, which protects fast packet switching in wireless networks. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, which the plaintiff defended in auxiliary form with limitations. The case concerns Cisco's Catalyst 9000 series network switches and addresses the interpretation of patent claims regarding latency reduction in processing data packets and headers in wireless network transmissions.
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.