technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 8 of 58 · 1,714 total
Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi Biotechnology SAS
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Amgen had appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissing its counterclaim for revocation. After the written procedure was closed and an oral hearing was scheduled, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Amgen applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, with Sanofi and Regeneron consenting. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, but dismissed Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure, falling outside the scope of R. 370.9(b) RoP.
ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH v.CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH's request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The underlying decision of March 18, 2026 had largely found that ALPINA's milk frother 'ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo' infringed European Patent EP 3 398 487, while ALPINA's counterclaim for revocation was unsuccessful. ALPINA filed its appeal on March 19, 2026, and sought suspensive effect at least until it becomes clear whether and to what extent CUP&CINO will seek enforcement in parallel proceedings concerning related European patents.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V.
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Sanofi and Regeneron appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 13 May 2025 that dismissed their infringement action and ordered them to bear the costs. After the written procedure was closed, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, indicating the parties had reached an agreement, and sought reimbursement of 50% of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, but dismissed the request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure.
REEL International (claimant) v.Fives ECL (defendant)
1 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, Division centrale (Section Munich) rendue le 24 mars 2026 EN-TETE Le défaut d’intérêt à agir et l’autorité de la chose jugée, que le défendeur à une action invoque pour dénier à
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This procedural order concerns the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action. The Claimant, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH, had filed an infringement action regarding EP 4 426 414 against the Defendant, Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L., and subsequently withdrew the action. The Court ordered the Registrar to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees (6,600 EUR) pursuant to Rule 370.9 RoP (2025), as the action was terminated before the closure of the written procedure.
Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning European Patent EP 2 919 672 B1. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit and requested a partial refund of court fees. The defendant consented to both the withdrawal and the fee refund, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_1963/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23 mars 2026 (R333 RdP révision d’une ordonnance) ENTETE La condition fixée par l’article 33.1(b) AJUB relative au lien commercial entre le
HyGear B.V., SYPOX GmbH - Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH - Technical University of Munich v.Topsoe A/S
This order concerns HyGear B.V.'s application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a case involving European patent EP3802413 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming. The main proceedings were initiated by Topsoe A/S against HyGear B.V., SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH, and the Technical University of Munich. The President of the Court of First Instance was asked to decide on the language change request pursuant to Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure, with most parties consenting to the change except the Technical University of Munich.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a.o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 605 534, with Dolby International AB as the plaintiff and Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. as defendants, relating to smart TV technology and standard-essential audio/video codecs. The dispute centers on FRAND licensing obligations and whether Dolby holds a dominant position on the relevant market. The Düsseldorf Local Division held that a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU may arise where smart TVs cannot be offered without a license to the patent in suit, given consumer expectations of codec compatibility. The court further ruled that under the Huawei v. ZTE negotiation framework, if the alleged infringer fails to express willingness to take a license after being notified of infringement, the examination terminates without needing to assess whether the patent holder's offer is FRAND.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow's appeal against the Milan Central Division's denial of its requests under R. 262.2 RoP to classify certain business information as confidential. The court held that trade secrets or confidential information lose their protected character when disclosed to the opposing party without a R. 262A RoP order or other restriction, and that a R. 262.2 RoP request does not automatically prevent the other party from disclosing the information.
(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED, (2) NAGOR LIMITED, (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, (4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED, (5) GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS, (6) EUROSILICONE SAS, (7) GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L., (8) GC AESTHETICS GmbH, (9) G v.ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (a group of GC Aesthetics entities and Romed N.V.) for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP against the claimant Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS) in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 107 487 B1. The defendants argued that LABS, incorporated in Costa Rica, posed an enforcement risk because Costa Rica had not ratified the Hague Judgement Convention and there was no precedent for enforcing UPC costs orders there. The Court ordered LABS to provide security of €600,000 within 21 days, either by deposit into a UPC account or by bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 398 487 B1, which relates to a method and device for producing milk foam with adjustable temperature. The plaintiff, CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG, brought the infringement claim against ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH. The key legal ruling addressed the scope of destruction remedies under Article 64(2)(e) UPCA, holding that advertising materials are exempt from destruction because they are not covered by the statutory wording.
VEOLIA PROPRETE, VALINEA ENERGIE, MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU
1 UPC_CFI_417/2025 UPC_CFI_509/2025 UPC_CFI_528/2025 DECISION du tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction Unifiée du Brevet rendue le 18 mars 2026 EN-TETE : 1. L'article 123(3) CBE a pour objectif de garantir la sécurité juridique des tiers en interdisant toute exte
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by Vivo against orders of the Paris Local Division that had rejected Vivo's preliminary objections challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over FRAND-related claims. The court held that the Paris LD properly exercised its discretion in deferring the admissibility decision on the FRAND determination claim to the main proceedings, and that the panel (rather than only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make such a deferral decision.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1, titled 'Method and arrangement for generating a laser beam with different beam profile characteristics.' TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE, the sole proprietor of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent, sued IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG for patent infringement. The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf heard oral arguments on January 22, 2026 and rendered its decision on March 16, 2026.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This appeal concerned the review of an ex parte order for inspection issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf. Ecovacs had applied for an order to inspect and preserve evidence of Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners exhibited at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin, alleging potential infringement of EP 3 808 512. The Court of Appeal addressed the heightened duty of candour imposed on applicants seeking ex parte orders under R. 192.3 RoP, holding that omissions and distorted accounts of material facts relevant to the proportionality assessment cannot be remedied by later submissions in response to a request for review.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 (UP) before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Milan Seat). The defendants filed an application under Rule 158 RoP requesting security for legal costs in the amount of 112,000 €, citing the claimant's weak financial position and the risk that a costs order would be difficult to enforce. The claimant opposed the application, requesting its dismissal or, alternatively, a reduction of the security amount based on its status as an SME.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
This case concerned a revocation action filed by Neurocrine Biosciences against Spruce Biosciences's European patent EP 3 784 233, relating to methods for treating testicular and ovarian adrenal rest tumors. During the proceedings, the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty, and Spruce chose not to appeal. The Court disposed of the revocation action as devoid of purpose under R. 360 RoP, awarded Neurocrine 80% of the maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000), and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, OPENAI LP, OPENAI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY v.KEEEX SAS
1 Ordonnance de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 13 mars 2026 EN-TÊTE : En principe, le mémoire en demande doit contenir les éléments de droit et fait nécessaires pour justifier la compétence de la juridiction. Lorsque la compétence de la juridiction est fo
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG, A. Menarini Diagnostics Frankreich SASU v.F. Hoffmann- La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This appeal concerned EP 1 962 668, a patent dispute in which F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH had obtained an order for interim measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on December 5, 2025. The Menarini entities appealed that order. Before the appeal could be heard, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Roche withdrew its request for interim measures. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure and terminated the proceedings, noting that each party would bear its own costs.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while the Qualcomm defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present conclusive evidence of infringement and that its application for production of evidence (including source code inspection) was speculative and unsupported.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
This decision of the Local Division Munich concerns an infringement action filed by BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG, with the defendant filing a counterclaim for revocation under a condition subsequent. The court addressed three key procedural and substantive issues: (1) the weight of applicant statements made during grant proceedings for claim interpretation, (2) whether basing an infringement allegation on the defendant's own description of the attacked product constitutes a claim amendment, and (3) the procedural admissibility of a conditional counterclaim for revocation.
Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendants' request for discretionary review of a Procedural Order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning patent EP 4 295 806. The Local Division had retroactively extended the Applicant's deadline to file a reply after the Applicant submitted an incorrect document from another case due to human error. The Court of Appeal held that the Local Division correctly applied Rule 9.3(a) RoP rather than Rule 320 RoP, and that the impugned Order was not manifestly incorrect.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a.o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 352 431 B1, in which the court rejected Hologic's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional brief formal comments on the Defendants' submissions dated September 24, 2025. The court held that the request was vague as Hologic failed to specify any new facts, and that Hologic's right to be heard was not unduly restricted since it retained the right to oppose the submissions and would have ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing.
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l
KeyMed brought a patent infringement action against Italian company PR Medical s.r.l. before the Milan Local Division, alleging infringement of EP 2575590 B2 through the marketing of an accessory called 'Detecto.' PR Medical raised a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14(2)(b) RoP and Article 33(1)(a) of the UPCA Agreement. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the two conditions under Rule 14.2(b) RoP are cumulative and must be interpreted restrictively as an exception.
Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB v.Dyson Technology Limited
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a handheld hair care appliance. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Dreame's appeal and allowed Dyson's appeal, extending the preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division to cover the New Dreame Products and Newest Dreame Products, in addition to the Old Dreame Products already covered. The Court of Appeal stayed proceedings concerning Spain and Eurep pending referral of EU law questions to the Court of Justice.
Gowling WLG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from preliminary injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_41/2025) between Boehringer Ingelheim and Zentiva Portugal, in which a final order had been issued on 8 May 2025. While Boehringer did not object (subject to confidentiality redactions), Zentiva opposed the request, arguing the main action was still pending and that the request was overly broad. The Lisbon Local Division granted access to the specifically identified pleadings in their redacted versions but dismissed the request for access to the exhibits, finding the evidence request insufficiently substantiated.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V v.HL Display AB
This appeal concerned patent EP 2 432 351, where the Local Division the Hague had found Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. infringed the patent and dismissed Black Sheep's counterclaim for revocation. Black Sheep appealed, but subsequently filed a withdrawal of the appeal proceedings under Rule 265(1) RoP, with HL Display's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to Black Sheep under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable to applications filed after 1 January 2026.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This case concerns an appeal from a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings involving Dyson's European Patent 3 119 235 (relating to a handheld hair care appliance). The Court of Appeal partially stayed the proceedings and referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48, particularly regarding jurisdiction over a Hong Kong-based company (Dreame International) and its German-based EU authorized representative (Eurep GmbH) in relation to alleged patent infringement in Spain and the UPC Territory.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning Hurom's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for a further exchange of written pleadings in an appeal against a decision of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Hurom's infringement claims and revoked parts of EP 3 155 936. The court held the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that Hurom had waited two months after the Statement of Response and that the parties would have sufficient opportunity to address each other's positions at the oral hearing scheduled for 2 April 2026.
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.