Belkin v Koninklijke Philips (CoA, UPC_CoA_534/2024, 3 October 2025)
| Date | 3 October 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Appeal RoP220.1 |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_534/2024 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CoA_534/2024 |
| Parties | Belkin GmbH, ****, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin Limited, **** and **** v. Koninklijke Philips N.V. |
Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Parties
- defendantKoninklijke Philips N.V.28 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantBelkin GmbH11 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantBelkin International, Inc.12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantBelkin Limited, **** and ****4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Appeal RoP220.1
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Belkin v Koninklijke Philips (CoA, UPC_CoA_19/2025, 3 October 2025) cited in this record
- Honeywell Control Systems v Sovex Systems (CFI, UPC_CFI_575/2025, 18 September 2026) cites this decision
- OXFORD NANOPORE v MGI TECH (CFI, 17 September 2026) cites this decision
- Aesculap v Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument (CFI, 1 September 2026) cites this decision
- Versah v HaeNaem (CFI, 25 August 2026) cites this decision
- Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v Occlutech (CoA, 18 August 2026) cites this decision
- Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere Innovations (CoA, 17 August 2026) cites this decision
- Fujifilm v Kodak (CoA, UPC_CoA_474/2025, 13 July 2026) cites this decision
- Align Technology v Angelalign Technology (CFI, 3 July 2026) cites this decision
- Evac v Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment (CFI, 22 June 2026) cites this decision
- Cardo Systems v Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin (CFI, 18 June 2026) cites this decision
- Hologic v Siemens Healthineers (CFI, 10 June 2026) cites this decision
- Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump v Grundfos (CoA, UPC_CoA_622/2025, 27 May 2026) cites this decision
- Occlutech v Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief (CFI, 20 May 2026) cites this decision
- Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTek Computer (CFI, UPC_CFI_757/2024, 6 May 2026) cites this decision
- QUANTIFICARE v Canfield Scientific (CFI, UPC_CFI_559/2024, 23 April 2026) cites this decision
- Sinocare v Abbott Diabetes Care (CoA, 30 March 2026) cites this decision
- TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik v IPG Laser (CFI, 16 March 2026) cites this decision
- Rematec v Europe Forestry (CoA, 17 February 2026) cites this decision
- Honeywell Control Systems v Sovex Systems (CFI, 12 February 2026) cites this decision
- Align Technology v Angelalign Technology (CFI, 12 February 2026) cites this decision
- Koninklijke Philips v Belkin International (CFI, 11 February 2026) cites this decision
- IMC Créations v Mul-T-Lock France (CFI, 16 January 2026) cites this decision
- M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz v Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret (CFI, 10 December 2025) cites this decision
- Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 25 November 2025) cites this decision
- Nokia Solutions and Networks v Zhejiang Geely Holding Group (CFI, 3 November 2025) cites this decision
- Malikie Innovations v Nintendo (CFI, UPC_CFI_555/2024, 28 October 2025) cites this decision
- Malikie Innovations v Nintendo (CFI, UPC_CFI_537/2024, 28 October 2025) cites this decision
- Honeywell Control Systems v Sovex Systems (CFI, 22 October 2025) cites this decision
- Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare (CFI, 17 October 2025) cites this decision
- Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, UPC_CFI_114/2024, 10 October 2025) cites this decision
- HL Display v Black Sheep Retail Products (CFI, 10 October 2025) cites this decision
- Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, UPC_CoA_312/2025, 2 June 2026) cites this decision
- Anker Innovations Deutschland v Koninklijke Philips (CoA, 27 May 2026) cites this decision
- Hurtel v Belkin (CoA, 30 September 2026) cites this decision
Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.