technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 29 of 58 · 1,714 total
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Kodak entities) for rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a decision dated 2 April 2025 in patent infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 476 616. The Defendants sought to rectify the value in dispute from EUR 15,000,000 to EUR 15,000,000 each for the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (totaling EUR 30,000,000), and alternatively to raise the ceiling for recoverable costs. The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, finding no deviation between the panel's intention and the wording of the decision.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
This appeal concerned an order for security for costs and an order on provisional measures brought by Ballinno B.V. against the Kinexon companies and UEFA in relation to EP 1 944 067. The appellant had built its case for provisional measures primarily around a major sports event, but subsequently withdrew its requests for provisional measures before the Court of First Instance issued its order, rendering the action devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was admissible and that Ballinno, having taken the inherent risk of its procedural strategy, must be considered the unsuccessful party and bear the costs under Article 69(1) UPCA.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
1. Nel procedimento disciplinato dalle rule 150 e segg RoP, il tetto massimo dei costi di difesa rimborsabili a favore della parte a cui tale diritto è stato riconosciuto da una decisione di merito, in ossequio al principio di proporzionalità, può essere raggiunto solo in situazioni limitate, ad esempio per la complessità delle questioni trattate, per il numero di brevetti esaminati, per le parti coinvolte o per l’uso di più lingue. 2. Nel procedimento disciplinato dalle rule 150 e segg Ro
Astronergy Europe GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a cost order under Rule 333 RoP. The Defendants sought review of the judge-rapporteur's order dated 2 April 2025, which had dismissed their application to require the Claimant to provide adequate security for costs. The Defendants argued that the Local Division Munich reached the opposite conclusion in a parallel proceeding between the same parties, and that UPC decisions, like German court decisions, cannot be enforced in China, justifying a security for costs order. The Claimant defended the original order, contending the Court applied the correct legal standard.
ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE Netherlands B.V., ZTE France SASU v.Respondent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd filed an infringement action against three ZTE group entities (ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, and ZTE Netherlands B.V.) concerning European patent EP 4 050 804 before the Mannheim Local Division. The defendants, all part of the same group and uniformly represented, requested harmonization of the time periods for filing Statements of Defence and Counterclaims for revocation, which had become staggered due to different service dates. With the claimant's consent, the court ordered a uniform deadline of 3 July 2025 for all three defendants.
STADA Nordic ApS v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel compounds for treating prostate cancer. The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, have brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur issued orders regarding the procedural schedule, including deadlines for rejoinders, closure of written procedure, interim conferences, and the oral hearing.
ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA v.BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH sought a preliminary injunction before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Zentiva Portugal, Lda, alleging imminent infringement of European Patent EP 1 830 843 B1, which protects the use of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The Court rejected the application, finding that Boehringer failed to demonstrate imminent infringement arising directly from Zentiva's conduct, particularly given that the Portuguese Intellectual Property Court had already granted a preliminary injunction in parallel proceedings. The Applicants were ordered to pay the Defendant interim costs of EUR 92,944.15.
Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare AB
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer). The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, sought cease and desist orders against defendants (Accord Healthcare, STADAPHARM, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities) for their sales of CABAZITAXEL ACCORD in various UPC Member States. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the EPO Board of Appeal decision and filed revocation counterclaims. The judge-rapporteur declined to stay the proceedings and set out the further procedural timetable.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, ***, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
An appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of proceedings. The appellant, Hybridgenerator ApS, appealed an order of the Copenhagen Local Division that declined to order the respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for failure to comply with an earlier order. With the agreement of both parties, the Court of Appeal changed the language of the appeal proceedings from Danish to English, finding that the change would shorten the timeframe for adjudication without causing disadvantage to the parties.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1 ('Kreiselpumpenaggregat' / centrifugal pump assembly). The plaintiff Grundfos Holding A/S (Denmark) sued the defendant Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (China) for infringement of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent. The decision addresses procedural questions regarding the admissibility of new prior art and new attacks on novelty and inventive step introduced by the defendant in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation.
Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva France
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in four consolidated sets of patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for treating castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva generic pharmaceutical companies across various UPC member states. The order addresses preliminary objections, sets further procedural deadlines, and confirms dates for interim conferences and the oral hearing.
Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France v.Dr Reddy's Srl, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel for use in treating prostate cancer. The claimants, comprising multiple Sanofi entities, brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur ordered that preliminary objections be dealt with in the main proceedings and set out the schedule for the remaining written and oral procedure.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a request by the Claimant, Polidoro S.p.a., to extend the deadline for filing its reply brief in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 037 175. The Claimant sought a one-week extension because the Statement of Defence was initially served in redacted form, with access to the unredacted version only granted later. The court found the extension justified and extended the deadline until 19 May 2025.
Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. v.Respondent
Yealink applied for rectification of a final order issued by the Local Division Brussels on 21 March 2025 in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, seeking to amend the operative part to explicitly characterize the cost award as an 'interim award' and add a reference to Rule 211(1)(d) RoP. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the grounds for rectification under R. 353 RoP are limited to clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions, none of which were present. The Court reasoned that the order must be read as a whole, and the existing reference to R. 150(2) RoP already encompasses the concept of an interim award of costs.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
This case before the Milan Local Division concerned the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving patent EP3076673 against Digital River Ireland Ltd. following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland. Both Ericsson and Digital River agreed to mutual withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, but disagreed on costs. The Court allowed the withdrawals, ordered the main proceedings to continue against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato), and held that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Inc., Apple GmbH v.Ona Patents SL, Ekahau Oy
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing an application to protect confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the unredacted version of the Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence regarding the Application to amend the patent as confidential, restricting access to specified representatives and the CEO of the Claimant.
Meril GmbH v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R.262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case between Meril GmbH and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris order granting access, holding that access should not be granted to unrepresented members of the public, and that the Statement of response lodged by an unauthorized representative constituted a decision by default. The Court also rejected Meril GmbH's request for costs.
Meril Italy v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Central Division Paris that had granted a member of the public access to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825. The Court of Appeal held that access under R. 262.1(b) RoP should not be granted to members of the public who are not represented by an authorised representative, and dismissed the underlying application. The Court also rejected Meril Italy's request for compensation of costs.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris's order granting access, holding that access to written pleadings and evidence should not be granted to members of the public who are not properly represented. The Court also held that compensation for costs should not be awarded in relation to such applications.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 2 May 2025 in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The order addresses preparatory matters for the oral hearing, including translation requirements, publication requests, cost estimates, and time limits for oral submissions. The court set a deadline of 9 May 2025 for the parties to respond to the court's requests and information.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV (Applicants) v.***
This provisional procedural order (Order IV) was issued by the Local Division Brussels on 2 May 2025 in case UPC_CFI_131/2025 concerning a request by claimants OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV for payment of litigation costs assessed at €92,814.62 under Rule 151 RoP in proceedings involving EP 2 233 036. The dispute centered on whether the costs proceedings should be suspended pending the defendant's appeal filed on 17 March 2025 against the LD Brussels decision of 17 January 2024 in UPC_CFI_376/2023. The claimants argued that under Article 74(1) UPCA, appeal has no suspensive effect and that no legal basis exists for delaying the costs decision.
Evac Oy v.Respondent
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Evac Oy regarding European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1 against six defendants, including a Chinese company, German companies, and individual persons. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 6 (S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH, Katharina Kiran Singh Kang, and Shaminder Singh Kang) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure. The proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 (Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, and Yong Cao) were ordered to continue, and no cost decision was required as the parties had agreed on costs.
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.
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.