technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 37 of 58 · 1,714 total
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_468/2023 Final decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 29/01/2025 concerning confirmation by the Court of a settlement APPLICANT C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED 3 Bramley's Barn, The Menagerie, Skipwith Road - YO19 6ET - Escrick - GB Rep
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Respondent
Qualcomm Incorporated filed a patent infringement action on 17 July 2024 before the Local Division Munich against six defendants concerning European patent EP 2 286 325. After reaching a settlement with Defendant 1 (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings), Qualcomm withdrew the action on 17 January 2025 and applied for a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of €18,600.00 to the Claimant.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
1. If the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State (here: Germany), the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK part of the patent in suit. This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. The terms used in a
Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 1 838 002, in which patent attorney Christian Läufer requested access to court filings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure as a member of the public for learning and training purposes. Neither the plaintiff (Avago Technologies) nor the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) raised objections to the request. The presiding judge granted the applicant access to the filings and annexes in the counterclaim for revocation workflow, but not to the infringement proceedings file or other workflows.
SnowPixie Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by the defendant in infringement proceedings for the Local Chamber Munich to order the plaintiff to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. The applicant argued that the plaintiff, a small enterprise, lacked sufficient financial means, citing a low credit rating and recent operating losses. The court ordered security for costs but reduced the amount based on equity considerations, while rejecting the plaintiff's application for legal aid because it was capable of bearing both its own costs and the ordered security.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The plaintiff Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. brought the action against three ASUS entities. The presiding judge scheduled an interim hearing via video conference for September 25, 2025, and an oral hearing in person for November 19, 2025, in Munich, with deadlines for parties to submit proposed topics and cost estimates.
UPC Decision UPC-000979 v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a cost reimbursement application filed by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited following the withdrawal of its request for interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912. The applicant initially sought 60% reimbursement of court fees but, following a court indication, amended its request to seek 20% reimbursement pursuant to Rule 370.11 in conjunction with Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure, applied analogously. The Local Division Munich found that Rule 370.9(b) RoP, which literally governs fee reimbursement upon withdrawal of a 'claim' under Rule 265, applies analogously to the withdrawal of a request for interim measures due to a regulatory gap and comparable interest situation.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
The defendant in an underlying patent infringement proceeding applied for an order requiring the plaintiff to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure, citing the plaintiff's poor credit rating and recent operating losses. The plaintiff opposed the application and alternatively sought legal aid. The Local Chamber Munich ordered the plaintiff to provide security in a reduced amount, finding that although the plaintiff qualified as a small enterprise with insufficient assets, equity considerations and the principle of effective access to justice warranted a reduction below the applicant's requested EUR 257,000. Legal aid was denied because the plaintiff was capable of bearing both its own costs and the reduced security.
Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva Pharma GmbH v.Sanofi Mature IP
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court scheduling an interim conference and oral hearing in consolidated infringement actions concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, and Zentiva, k.s. (among other defendants in related proceedings). The Presiding Judge set the interim conference for 17 July 2025 and the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This case concerns the admissibility of a revocation action filed by Photon Wave Co., Ltd. against Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s European patent EP 3404726 before the Paris Local Division. The revocation action was originally brought before the Paris Central Division but was transferred to the Local Division following a preliminary objection order. Seoul Viosys argued that the Local Division lacks jurisdiction under Article 33(4) UPCA and that the action is manifestly inadmissible because Photon Wave, as an intervener in a pending infringement action, is restricted to filing a counterclaim for revocation rather than an independent revocation action.
Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott, Abbott B.V. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 831 282. DexCom had initiated infringement proceedings against the Abbott companies before the Paris Local Division, which were met by a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. On appeal, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and the Abbott companies withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to closure of the proceedings.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 435 866. DexCom appealed a decision of the Paris Local Division that had revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. Following the appeal, both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, and the Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal court fees to DexCom.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the withdrawal of counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND-license offer filed by certain TCL defendants in a patent infringement action brought by NEC Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. Following a settlement and the conclusion of a patent licence agreement, the defendants withdrew both counterclaims and sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees for both counterclaims, and held that a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer is subject to court fees by analogous application of Rule 370 RoP.
Headwater Research LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947. The order addresses multiple applications including Samsung's filing on Headwater's standing to sue, Samsung's confidentiality application, and Headwater's applications for leave to amend its pleadings. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, dismissed Samsung's confidentiality application as superfluous, and set deadlines for further submissions and the Interim Conference.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_472/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/01/2025 Order no. ORD_68843/2024 DAINESE S.p.A. - Plaintiff - against ALPINESTARS S.p.A. - Defendant 1 - and against ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p
ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A, ULRICH HERPICH E.K, Alpinestars S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L. , HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY , MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L. v.Dainese S.p.A.
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_472/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/01/2025 Order no. ORD_68844/2024 DAINESE S.p.A. - Plaintiff - against ALPINESTARS S.p.A. - Defendant 1 - and against ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The order reschedules the interim hearing (Zwischenanhörung) from May 23, 2025 to May 28, 2025 due to a scheduling conflict, while confirming the oral hearing date of July 1, 2025. The written proceedings are set to close on May 14, 2025, and parties may submit substantive proposals for the interim hearing until May 23, 2025.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 646 825, dealing with procedural applications following a prior infringement decision. Meril (the defendants) sought an extension of the deadline to comment on Edwards Lifesciences' application for a cost decision, arguing that pending confidentiality issues prevented them from properly responding. The judge-rapporteur lifted all deadlines relating to the cost decision and the protection of confidential information, with new deadlines to be set in due course.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses procedural matters related to Edwards's application for a cost decision and competing confidentiality applications under Rule 262A RoP. The court indicated its intention to follow the reasoning of the Central Division (Paris Seat) order of 30 July 2024, which would grant Meril unlimited access to the costs application while restricting third-party/public access under Rule 262.2 RoP. Edwards was invited to comment within 10 days on the confidentiality applications before the court would invite Meril to comment on the costs application.
Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
Before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 3 646 825, Meril sought a partial stay of proceedings relating to Edwards Lifesciences' cost decision application and a stay of the confidentiality information application, pending a Court of Appeal decision. The judge-rapporteur indicated willingness to order a full stay if both parties agreed, but neither party requested one. Meril then informed the court that its confidentiality stay application would not be maintained if a full or partial stay of the costs proceedings was not granted, rendering a decision on that application unnecessary.
Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued on 22 January 2025, consolidating four parallel patent infringement actions (UPC_CFI_145/2024 through UPC_CFI_148/2024) brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The defendants raised preliminary objections concerning jurisdiction, standing of certain claimants, and the scope of the claims. Following a preliminary interim conference, the court ordered Sanofi to remedy deficiencies in its formal submissions within 7 days, invited defendants to comment within 14 days, waived all other deadlines, and set the values of the infringement claims and counterclaims.
NJOY Netherlands B.V v.VMR Products LLC
Revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 613 453 B1 relating to electronic vapour products, filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against VMR Products LLC. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) found that claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 lacked inventive step over prior art, but dependent claims 6, 7, and 8 involved an inventive step and possessed independent validity. The patent was maintained in part based on claims 6, 7, and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted, with the remainder revoked.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, brought by Fujifilm Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order, issued in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 11-13 February 2025, sets out preliminary views and questions on key issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law (UPCA versus national law), the value of the dispute, priority and prior use rights, the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and infringement by the SONORA XTRA-3 product.
P.T.S. Machinery B.V. v.Mammoet Holding B.V.
The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_16/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/01/2025 regarding the preserving of evidence APPLICANT Mammoet Holding B.V. (Applicant) Karel Doormanweg 47 - 3115 JD - Schiedam – NL Represented
KIPA AB v.Respondent
An unnamed member of the public, represented by Erik Krahbichler, applied for access to all written pleadings and evidence in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_380/2023) between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril et al. concerning EP 3 769 722. After the parties objected and Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited requested reimbursement of EUR 17,168.70 in legal costs, the Applicant withdrew the applications. The judge-rapporteur closed the proceedings on the access applications and dismissed the requests for reimbursement of legal costs, holding that Article 69 UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering a member of the public to reimburse costs incurred by parties consulted under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
PowerDeal SRL v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for rectification under Rule 353 RoP filed in connection with infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., sought rectification of a prior order concerning the protection of confidential information. The court dismissed the application, finding no obvious slip or clerical mistake, as the unredacted version of the order correctly contained the name of a natural person of Defendant 7 (PowerDeal SRL) to whom access was granted, while only the redacted version had that name replaced with '[…]'.
air up group GmbH v.Respondent
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned the service of a decision by default in provisional measures proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Chinese authorities under the Hague Service Convention, which failed to process service for over six months. The court held that publication of the decision by default on the Court's website, with notification to the defendant by email, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This is a revocation action filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against VMR Products LLC before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance, concerning European patent EP 3 626 092, which relates to vaporizer devices (electronic cigarettes). The claimant seeks revocation of the patent with effect across multiple European territories, arguing lack of inventive step. The patent was filed on 14 March 2014 with priority dates of 12 November 2013 and 10 February 2014, and was also subject to pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office.
XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V. v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 15/01/2025 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1) XSYS Germany GmbH, Industriestraße 1, 77731 Willstätt - G
SharkNinja Europe Limited, SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by SharkNinja to suspend the cost assessment proceedings or, alternatively, to extend the time limit for filing a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction against SharkNinja and ordering Dyson to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding when the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 of the Rules of Procedure begins to run and the applicability of Rules 150 and 151 when no main proceedings under Rule 213 are initiated.
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.