technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 58 · 1,714 total
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed an infringement action on the merits against Zentiva Portugal concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), following the grant of provisional measures by the Court of Appeal. After the patent expired on 21 December 2025, Boehringer requested disposal of the action under R. 360 RoP as devoid of purpose. The Court of First Instance (Lisbon Local Division) granted the request, finding the action moot, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
SharkNinja Operating LLC filed an application for provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against several entities of the SEB group, alleging infringement of European patents EP 3 689 198 and EP 3 689 201. The dispute concerns SEB's launch of the 'Cookeo Infinity' range of cooking devices, which includes an air frying mode, allegedly imitating SharkNinja's patented technology. The decision addresses the legal principle that lack of novelty may arise from implicit disclosure in prior art, where a person skilled in the art would objectively consider the result as necessarily implied.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited brought a revocation action against Flexicare (Group) Limited concerning European Patent EP 4 185 356, which relates to a nasal cannula with a swivel connection. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) held that claim 1 as granted and its dependent claims lack novelty over prior art document D2, and that auxiliary request 1 also lacks novelty over D2 while auxiliary requests 2 to 13 lack clarity. The patent was revoked in its entirety, the application to amend was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a. o.
This decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent No. 3 926 698 B1 and addresses the procedural interplay between cost decisions and subsequent appeal proceedings. The court clarified that under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure, a cost determination application must be filed within one month of the main proceedings decision. If a cost decision is rendered before the appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is later amended on appeal, the original cost decision loses its basis, and any amounts already reimbursed thereunder become recoverable as part of the costs in the post-appeal cost proceedings.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Orange SA against HMD Global Oy regarding European Patent EP2345029. Orange sought to have certain arguments from HMD's Rejoinder Part II declared inadmissible as late-filed, or alternatively to be permitted to file supplementary written submissions in response. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that, in the interests of fairness and adversarial proceedings, Orange should have the final say on the FRAND defence raised by HMD, and accordingly allowed Orange's proposed written response on the FRAND defence while denying HMD's subsidiary request to respond further.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
This is an order from the Court of First Instance, Local Division The Hague, concerning European Patent EP2061230 owned by Maxell, Ltd. The order records decisions taken at an interim conference held on 10 April 2026 in proceedings between Maxell (claimant/defendant in counterclaim) and multiple Samsung entities (defendants/claimants in counterclaim). The order sets the value of the infringement action at EUR 1,500,000 and the counterclaim action at EUR 2,000,000, clarifies the parties' respective requests, and addresses pending objections relating to the de-facto-FRAND defence and new invalidity attacks.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. al
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague addresses confidentiality and evidence production issues in patent infringement proceedings brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. against multiple TCL entities concerning European patents EP3103116 and EP2420029. The order deals with Philips' application to reject TCL's confidentiality request and evidence production request, as well as Philips' own request to classify certain information as confidential under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The matter involves competing confidentiality regimes proposed by both parties regarding licence-related information and commercially sensitive data exchanged during the proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a.o.
This case concerns a cost assessment proceeding related to European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., had originally sued the defendants for patent infringement, while the second defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. The patent was revoked for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, and the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, with the plaintiff ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. The defendants filed a cost assessment application seeking reimbursement of their attorney fees, travel costs, and court fees, based on a prior agreement between the parties.
WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) v.VILPE Oy (defendant)
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2026-04-08) under reference UPC_95D854827E, WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) appeared in dispute with VILPE Oy (defendant) concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson Holding International B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicações Lda
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, Orope Germany GmbH v.Koninklijke KPN N.V
This order concerns a procedural application by the defendants (Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd and Orope Germany GmbH) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. based on European patent EP 3349412. The claimant agreed to the language change but requested three weeks to provide English translations of the Statement of Claim and certain annexes, while the defendants requested two weeks. The President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language change to English and addressed the translation timeline.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against multiple Dreame-related entities and a UK-based company (Cellcom Ltd.) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a hand-held hair care appliance. Dyson asserted that the Defendants' sales of the 'Dreame Dazzle Hair Styler' infringed claims 1 and 11 of the patent, directly or by equivalence. The Local Division Hamburg addressed issues of international jurisdiction under the Brussels I recast regulation, the role of an Authorized Representative in Northern Ireland, and the principles governing split cost decisions.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns applications for a stay of proceedings and security for costs in appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 671 173. The appellant Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought a stay of proceedings and security for costs against Microsoft Corporation in the context of a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal framework under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rules 158 and 295 of the Rules of Procedure, clarifying who may request security for costs and under what circumstances such requests are admissible.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO. LTD.
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation under Rule 109 RoP in connection with appeals against orders of the Paris Central Division. The respondents (Robert Bosch entities) sought simultaneous French-English interpretation for the appeal hearing, while the appellant (Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage) opposed the request. The Court rejected the interpretation request and ordered that the oral proceedings at the hearing
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
This order concerns the defendant's second application to postpone the oral hearing date in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 251 983. The defendant had previously confirmed 8 December 2026 as its preferred hearing date, and the Court had already rejected a first postponement application. The Court addressed procedural expectations regarding timely responses to scheduling proposals and the standard for granting postponements once a date has been agreed.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH a.o.
The plaintiff, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, holder of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1 concerning an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies, sued Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International for infringement relating to their 'Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber' product. The defendants had filed an opposition before the European Patent Office seeking full revocation of the patent-in-suit. The Local Chamber Munich addressed whether to stay proceedings under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure, given that the EPO Opposition Division had revoked the patent between the oral hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This is a preliminary order from the Local Division The Hague concerning a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026 in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and multiple Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153, which relates to the OPUS standard. The hearing addressed issues including the patent pool administered by Vectis, potential counterclaims for rate setting against Vectis, and the applicability of FRAND/Huawei v ZTE framework given that the patent at issue is part of the pool but not subject to a FRAND declaration. The presiding judge urged parties to continue negotiations and noted that a parallel OPUS case in the Dusseldorf Local Division expected a decision in mid-March 2026 that could serve as a benchmark.
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
This order concerns the defendant's second request to postpone the oral hearing date in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 251 983. The Local Chamber Munich had proposed three hearing dates on February 13, 2026; the plaintiff responded within the deadline, but the defendant did not. The court set December 8, 2026 as the hearing date, which the defendant subsequently confirmed as its preferred date, before filing a second postponement request. The court rejected the request, holding that once a date is agreed upon, alternative dates are no longer reserved and postponement requires substantial grounds submitted with the request.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Illumina, Inc v.Element Biosciences, Inc. Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos, LDA
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. a.o.
This procedural order concerns a request by the three defendants to align the time limit for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action. The defendants argued that alignment would simplify proceedings and synchronize deadlines, and the claimant's representative had agreed out of court. The court found the request reasonable, noting that the deviation was only about 20 days, and held that while the claimant was not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it bore the risk of deviating service dates due to its delay in arranging such payment.
Sinocare Inc., No. 265, Guyan Road, Hi-Tech Zone, Changsha,, A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., Via Sette Santi 3, 50131 Fir v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 1360 South Loop Road, Alameda, CA, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
This appeal concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., who were found to infringe the patent through their GlucoMen iCan product. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction prohibiting the manufacture, marketing, and sale of the GlucoMen iCan in the UPC territory and ordered the Appellants to pay €200,000 as an interim award of costs.
Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the lower court's order that had refused Amazon's request to produce a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional transcriber. The Court held that under Rule 115 RoP, a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing with the assistance of support staff such as a stenographer working in the presence and under supervision of the party or its representative. The Court further held that such private transcripts may be used in related proceedings outside the UPC, provided specific conditions regarding clear labeling and compliance with confidentiality orders are met.
Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., - 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beongil, Danwongu, Ansansi,
This revocation action concerns European patent EP 3 926 698 B1 relating to a light-emitting diode. The claimant sought revocation on grounds of added subject-matter and lack of inventive step, later adding a novelty ground. The defendant sought to maintain the patent as granted or in amended form through multiple auxiliary requests. The Court addressed the consequences of a parallel Court of Appeal decision that had already revoked claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9, and ruled on the admissibility of subsequent amendments and late-filed evidence.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
This is an appeal concerning an application for interim measures related to alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation. ONWARD Medical N.V., the registered proprietor of the patent, sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Division Munich, which issued an order on October 17, 2025. The appeal addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the assertion of a non-registered claim version in interim proceedings, the admissibility of auxiliary requests under Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure, and the determination of intended use under Article 26 EPGÜ for indirect patent infringement.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd. (in UPC_CoA_409/2025); NUC Electronics CO., Ltd
Three consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 028 981, a patent for a juice extractor owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. The appeals challenged decisions of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (Korea), and WARMCOOK's 'AUTO10' slow juicers. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of international jurisdiction under Article 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, particularly regarding Turkey (a non-UPC contracting EPC member state), and held that mere access to the case file does not constitute entering an appearance.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European Patent EP3812870, to which Belparts responded with a counterclaim for infringement and an application to amend the patent. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective actions. The Court granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and entered the decision on the register without issuing a cost decision.
SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, SANOFI-AVENTIS GROUPE S.A., SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE S.A., and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.AMGEN, INC
This decision concerns an application by Sanofi and Regeneron to withdraw their application for rehearing filed against the Court of Appeal's 25 November 2025 decision, which had set aside the Central Division Munich's revocation of EP 3 666 797 and rejected the revocation request. Amgen consented to the withdrawal and indicated no decision on costs was necessary. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and rejected the request for reimbursement of court fees because only one fee had been paid when two were due.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG a.o. v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a.o.
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities regarding European Patent EP 1 962 668. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiffs withdrew the action and requested a 50% reimbursement of court fees, with the defendants consenting to the withdrawal. The parties had reached an out-of-court settlement under which each side bears its own costs, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
Applicant *** v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declared a second application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) inadmissible. The Applicant, who was the defendant in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350, had already filed a first application for suspensive effect that was rejected on 16 January 2026. The second application, filed on 20 February 2026, raised arguments identical or very similar to those in the first application, and the court held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the new submissions could not reasonably have been made in the previous application.
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.