Himson Engineering Private Limited v. Ex Parte

Ona Patents SLvsApple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL

This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1, issued in combined infringement and revocation proceedings. The court identified significant ambiguities in the Claimant's presentation regarding the chain of title and ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning three patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The court ordered the Claimant to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants to respond by 3 September 2025.

Aylo Premium LtdvsDISH Technologies L.L.C.

Revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1 relating to apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) held that the patent was invalid on grounds of added matter, as it extended beyond the content of the parent application. The Court revoked the German part of the patent and ordered the Defendant to bear the costs.

NEC CorporationvsTCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.

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.

air up group GmbHvsGuangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.

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.

Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KGvsToyota Motor Europe NV/SA

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Toyota's request for a decision by default against Neo Wireless's appeal of an order rejecting Neo's preliminary objection to the UPC's jurisdiction. The court held that Neo had timely corrected formal deficiencies and that the 15-day deadline for filing a statement of appeal under R.224.1(b) RoP runs from the date of service of the decision granting leave to appeal, not from the date of the impugned order.