technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 32 of 58 · 1,714 total
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the continuation of the written procedure in a patent infringement action involving EP 4 108 782. The claimants (10x Genomics and Harvard) had initially filed 55 auxiliary requests, which were later reduced to 4 in a revised application to amend the patent submitted on 9 April 2025. The panel held that 4 auxiliary requests is indisputably a reasonable number under Rule 30.1(c) RoP, and ordered continuation of the written procedure given the proceedings had already lasted nearly two years and an oral hearing date had already been agreed.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_597/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 11/04/2025 APPLICANT EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (Applicant) - 302Ho, HUMAX VILLAGE, 216, Hwangsaeul-ro, Bundang-gu - 13595
Ericsson GmbH, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
Ericsson withdrew its second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 and the associated appeal before the Court of Appeal, following the Local Division Munich's rejection of the counterclaim as inadmissible based on a preliminary objection by Motorola. Both parties consented to the withdrawal and agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Ericsson.
Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor SASU v.AIM Sport Development AG
This appeal concerned two orders of the Helsinki Local Division in an infringement action brought by AIM Sport Development AG against several TGI entities (formerly Supponor entities). The appellants challenged orders relating to the amendment of a claim under Rule 263 RoP and the addition of a defendant under Rule 305 RoP. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion under both rules, limiting appellate review, and clarified the procedural requirements for applications under these provisions.
ALIUD PHARMA GmbH v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_698/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 10/04/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) ALIUD PHARMA GmbH (Applicant) - Gottlieb-Daimler-Str. 19 - 89150 - Laichingen - DE Represented b
Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109 B1, which is in force in Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, and Slovenia. The plaintiffs, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich (along with third-party counterdefendant Alexander Christ), allege that the defendant, Knaus Tabbert AG, infringes the patent. The decision addresses two key legal questions: the interpretation of product-by-process claims and the jurisdiction over financial compensation claims for the use of a published European patent application.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'directly or indirectly' in claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach in the case heading. The court partially granted the application, correcting the clerical error regarding the struck-through phrase but rejecting the request to add another attorney as it did not constitute an obvious inaccuracy.
TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., LG Electronics European Holding B.V., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschlan v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 9 April 2025 Application: 17158/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Corning - US represented by: Dr. Marcus Grosch, Qui
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses the withdrawal of various applications filed in the course of infringement proceedings. After third party Erik Krahbichler withdrew his application for access to the file, defendants Meril filed applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. Following guidance from the judge-rapporteur referencing a similar order from the Central Division Paris Seat, Meril withdrew these applications, and the court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech SE, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant Promosome LLC proposed significantly lower amounts. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly, rejecting the request for a default decision as premature.
Epson Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534, which is essential for the Opus Audio Codec. The main infringement proceedings are brought by Dolby International AB against Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş regarding televisions and electronic devices running Android TV version 5.0 or later. The applicant, Epson Deutschland GmbH, is a defendant in a parallel infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division concerning projectors and Android TV devices, and seeks public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v.Respondent
Procedural order concerning European Patent No. 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. Following a third party's (Erik Krahbichler) withdrawal of his application for access to the file, the defendant Meril Life Sciences withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. The Presiding Judge permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential.
Pfizer AB , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) sought security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant (Promosome LLC) proposed a lower amount. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly while rejecting the request for a default decision.
Alpinestars S.p.A. v.Dainese S.p.A.
1. The UPC “shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State” pursuant the Article 71a of the Regulation (EU) n. 1215/2012 (recast) as amended by Regulation (EU) 542/2014. Its interpretation provided for by the Court of Justice of the European Union apply to the UPC as it were a national court. 2. In light of Court of Justice decision in case C-339/2022, 25 February 2025, UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents ove
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117, filed an application under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its claims by withdrawing all arguments related to EP'117 following an adverse Board of Appeal decision at the EPO, while maintaining its claims regarding EP'364. The defendants contended that the application constituted a partial withdrawal governed by Rule 265 RoP, requiring the claimant to bear the defendants' costs. The Milan Local Division held that Rule 263.3 RoP applies both to limitations of the relief sought (petitum) and to limitations of the cause of action (causa petendi), and that unlike Rule 265 RoP, Rule 263 RoP does not regulate proceeding costs because the proceedings continue against the defendants in relation to the remaining claims.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against three Meril entities (based in Germany, India, and Italy) before the Local Division Munich, alleging that Meril's 'Myval' transcatheter heart valve and 'Navigator' delivery device infringed EP 3 669 828 B2 ('Prosthetic Heart Valve'). Meril contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, while Edwards sought to amend the patent. The Court rejected Meril's preliminary objections on jurisdiction, upheld the patent as amended, found infringement, and ordered cease-and-desist, recall, destruction, disclosure, publication, and provisional damages of EUR 663,000.
Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of a preliminary injunction application filed by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1. The Lisbon Local Division held that R. 150 RoP can apply to cost decisions following the rejection of a preliminary injunction, and applied the principle of proportionality to award only the travel expenses of the representatives (EUR 4,946.22), rejecting the other claimed costs to avoid the risk of double assessment with the subsequently filed main action on the merits.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S v.Fingon LLC
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Samsung in a patent infringement action brought by Fingon LLC regarding EP 2 839 403. The defendants challenged the validity of the claimant's withdrawal of an opt-out and the UPC's temporal jurisdiction over acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force and during the opt-out period. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection, holding that questions of fact and law relevant to both jurisdiction and the merits should be reserved for the main proceedings.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.Respondent
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an infringement action against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Digital River Ireland Ltd. before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. Following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by an Irish court, Ericsson sought leave to withdraw the action against Digital River. The Court allowed the partial withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, directed Ericsson to file an amended Statement of Claim within 10 days, and granted AsusTek two months to file its Statement of Defence from service of the amended pleading.
Pfizer AB , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. v.Promosome LLC
In a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 before the Local Division Munich, the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested under Rule 190 RoP that the Claimant Promosome LLC produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in the proceedings. The Court rejected the request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, finding that the Defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of their defences, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested and the facts they sought to prove.
Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH v.Corning Incorporated
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 April 2025 Preliminary Objections: 8315/2025 8851/2025 10368/2025 8312/2025 8203/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Co
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted EOFlow to withdraw its application for leave to appeal against an order of the Central Division (Milan) that had dismissed EOFlow's application for a cost decision without examination of the substance. Insulet agreed to the withdrawal, and neither party sought a decision on the costs of the leave to appeal proceedings.
BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech SE, BioNTech Europe GmbH , BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH v.Promosome LLC
This case concerns a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) filed an application under Rule 190 RoP seeking to compel the claimant Promosome LLC to produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in support of its infringement claims. The court rejected the defendants' request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, holding that the defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of any defense, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns generic procedural applications filed by Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in an underlying infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, seeking a decision by default against the claimant. Microsoft argued that Suinno failed to provide security for costs within the court-ordered time limit and that the facts justified dismissing the infringement action, dismissing the application to amend the patent, and revoking European patent EP 2 671 173 in its entirety. Suinno did not oppose a default decision against itself, instead seeking confirmation of the patent's validity, a finding of infringement, and payment of €2,000,000 under 'invoice 1331'. The Court addressed the legal framework for default decisions under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174. The court ordered the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent-in-suit because the ECJ decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte), which addressed a fundamental question of European law on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, was only delivered after the oral hearing. The court found it inappropriate to delay the entire decision or hold a second oral hearing, and instead separated the UK-related claims to be dealt with in separate proceedings.
Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the defendants for an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendants argued that because the claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., is domiciled in China, enforcement of any cost decision against it would be highly difficult or nearly impossible. The claimant opposed the motion, contending that basing a security order solely on the nationality or domicile of a party would constitute a priori discrimination not supported by any source of law, and that judgments from numerous countries including Germany have been recognized and enforced in China under Article 267 of the PRC Law of Civil Procedure.
Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S, Ascendis Pharma A/S v.BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning a preliminary objection filed by Ascendis Pharma in an infringement action brought by BioMarin Pharmaceutical regarding European patent 3 175 863 (Variants of C-Type Natriuretic Peptide). Ascendis challenged the validity of BioMarin's withdrawal of opt-out and argued that BioMarin failed to establish the court's competence by not sufficiently alleging infringing acts. The presiding judge rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, finding the opt-out withdrawal valid and that BioMarin had sufficiently shown actual and threatened infringement occurring in Germany.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, and alleging added matter. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement by the defendants' SONORA XTRA-3 product, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 April 2025 Applications: 8314/2025 8850/2025 8319/2025 8313/2025 8316/2025 8317/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Co
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, by selling SONORA X, SONORA XTRA-2, and SONORA XTRA-3 products in Germany and the UK. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The Local Division Mannheim revoked the patent entirely in Germany, dismissed Fujifilm's application to amend the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Fujifilm to pay EUR 300,000 in interim costs.
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.