Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court in a revocation action (UPC 829/2024) brought by UPM-Kymmene Oyj against International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The order, issued by Judge-rapporteur András Kupecz following an interim conference on 21 November 2025, sets the value of the case at EUR 1,000,000, grants the Defendant time to clarify its requests, and confirms the date of the oral hearing for 15 January 2026 in Munich.
Detailed Summary
This Order was issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Section Munich), on 21 November 2025, by Judge-rapporteur András Kupecz, in revocation action UPC 829/2024.
The Claimant is UPM-Kymmene Oyj, a Finnish company based in Helsinki, represented by Clemens Tobias Steins of Hoffmann Eitle PartmbB. The Defendant is International N&H Denmark ApS, a Danish company based in Kongens Lyngby, represented by Matthew Naylor of Mewburn Ellis LLP. The Defendant was substituted for Virdia Inc. The Claimant was further represented at the interim conference by Peter Klusmann and Adam Lacy of Hoffmann Eitle, while the Defendant was further represented by Paul Dunne, Chloe Flower, and Rebecca Blundell of Mewburn Ellis.
The patent at issue is European Patent number 2 611 800. The proceedings were conducted in English.
On 20 December 2024, the Claimant brought a revocation action against the Defendant in the Central Division (Section Munich). An interim conference was held on 21 November 2025 before the judge-rapporteur.
Pursuant to Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure, the order sets out the decisions taken at the interim conference:
1. The value of the case was set at EUR 1,000,000 (one million euro).
2. The Defendant was allowed to clarify and order its requests as discussed during the interim conference and was ordered to confirm its requests in writing at the latest by 28 November 2025.
3. The date of the oral hearing was confirmed as Thursday 15 January 2026, at 9:30 AM, at the premises of the Central Division in Munich.
4. Parties were permitted to use visual aids such as PowerPoint presentations, provided these were sent to the Court and the other party at the latest by noon CET on Friday 9 January 2026.
5. Any other decision was to be taken by the panel after hearing the parties at the oral hearing.
The order was signed digitally by Judge-rapporteur András Ferenc Kupecz on 21 November 2025.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section. Understanding the court's reasoning in UPM-Kymmene Oyi vs International N&H Denmark is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.vsRespondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_587/2025 UPC_CFI_624/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/08/2025 APPLICANT 1) A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Applicant, Defendant in the main proceedings, hereinafter: “Menarini”) - Via
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.vs10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This case concerns an order by the Court of Appeal regarding coercive penalties in proceedings involving European Patent 4 108 782. The court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction order retroactively removes the legal basis for subsequent decisions ordering payment of coercive penalties for alleged violations occurring before the setting aside. The Court of Appeal held that the setting aside of a first-instance preliminary injunction order under Art. 75(1) EPGÜ and Rule 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the order is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning, thereby eliminating the legal basis for any subsequent coercive penalty decisions.
Bostik, Inc., 53226, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, USvs1-Henkel France, 4-Henkel AG & Co. KGaA.
Bostik, Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1 relating to cohesive coatings for snack food packaging, sued multiple Henkel entities for allegedly infringing the patent through their Loctite® Liofol products in several European territories. Henkel filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division declared the patent invalid in its entirety, finding that claim 1 as granted extended beyond the disclosure of the original application (added matter) because it encompassed embodiments with adhesive strength below 118.11 g/cm not supported by the original filing. Consequently, Bostik's infringement action was dismissed and Bostik was ordered to bear all costs.
KEEEX SAS,vsADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_530/2025 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 04/02/2026 Concernant une demande de décision par défaut (R.158.5 et R. 355.1 RdP) DEMANDEUR KEEEX SAS 5 rue de Lissandre 13013 MARSEILLE - FR Représenté par Thibaud
Dyson Technology LimitedvsDREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED
Dyson Technology Limited filed a request to impose a penalty payment against Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited for alleged infringement of prior court decisions concerning European Patent EP3119235. During an oral hearing in a related case, the parties reached a settlement that included the withdrawal of the penalty request and an agreement that no cost reimbursement would be sought. The court permitted the withdrawal, confirmed that no cost decision was required, and set the value of the enforcement proceedings at EUR 100,000.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.