Patent Cases

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001270

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom International Limited

This procedural order concerns Dexcom's request to amend its counter claim for revocation in proceedings involving EP 4 070 727 B1. After Abbott withdrew part of its infringement claim regarding the Dexcom G7-System with a G7-Receiver, Dexcom sought to add a declaration of non-infringement for that product combination. The Judge-Rapporteur granted leave to amend, finding Dexcom could not reasonably have filed the amendment earlier, and allowed Abbott 30 days to respond.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001269

Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in an underlying infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, sought panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order rejecting its application to have the claimant's action declared manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order, holding that the alleged lack of independence of the claimant's representative and the alleged insufficiency of the statement of claim did not meet the threshold of 'manifest' inadmissibility. The panel also declined to grant leave to appeal or refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001268

Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Access under R. 262.1(b) RoP – Ballinno B.V. v.UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH)

Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to the written pleadings and evidence filed in a concluded provisional measures proceeding (Ballinno B.V. v UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) concerning EP1944067. The Defendants did not oppose access but requested that grey-highlighted technical data be kept confidential as trade secrets. The Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) granted the application, providing access to redacted versions of the substantive filings while ordering that the highlighted technical information be treated as strictly confidential.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001267

Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Audi AG's applications for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court held that NST, a small US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity with only two employees, no physical assets, and limited funding, failed to provide sufficient comfort that a possible cost order would be recoverable. The Court ordered NST to provide security for costs in amounts of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000, and EUR 300,000 in the three related proceedings, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank, within three weeks of service.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001266

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.

The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected the plaintiff's application to examine its own party expert as a witness in the oral hearing concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff sought the examination after the close of the interim proceedings, arguing that the deadline for its reply on the FRAND counterclaim was insufficient to address the opposing party's expert opinion. The court held that the application was procedurally improper and that the named person was not to be examined as a witness but rather to present expert opinions, which is not permissible under the Rules of Procedure.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001265

Dexcom International Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

This is a procedural order from the Local Division of the Court of First Instance in The Hague concerning a counter claim for revocation related to European Patent EP 4 070 727 B1. Dexcom sought leave to amend their counter claim to add a declaration of non-infringement regarding the Dexcom G7-System used with the G7-Receiver, following Abbott's withdrawal of that portion of its infringement claim. The Judge-Rapporteur granted leave to amend, finding Dexcom could not reasonably have filed the amendment earlier, and allowed Abbott 30 days to respond.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001264

Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH

This appeal concerned a dispute over European patent EP 2 044 709 B1, which had effect only in Germany. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that while Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply to UPC proceedings during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, they did not require the UPC to decline jurisdiction because the German revocation action and the UPC proceedings did not involve the same parties. However, the Court of Appeal granted Mala's auxiliary request to stay the UPC revocation proceedings pending a final decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the parallel German revocation proceedings.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001263

Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Volkswagen AG's requests for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity. The Court held that NST's failure to provide sufficient comfort regarding its ability to cover potential cost orders justified ordering security, and that the relative financial positions of the parties are not a criterion under R.158 RoP. NST was ordered to provide security of EUR 100,000 in two cases and EUR 300,000 in the third, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank within three weeks.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001262

Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court reviewed a confidentiality order issued in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. While the panel agreed that the documents (a patent license agreement and a patent purchase & licence agreement) contained business secrets worthy of protection, it set aside the confidentiality order because the respondent's representative was simultaneously its managing director and main shareholder, lacking the independence required under Article 48(5) of the UPCA and Article 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct. The application for confidentiality was declared inadmissible, though those already admitted to the confidentiality ring remained bound by non-disclosure obligations, and leave to appeal was granted.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001261

Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

This order concerns procedural applications filed in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 4 151 181. The applicants (Meril entities) sought to have the respondent's (Edwards Lifesciences) counterclaim for infringement declared inadmissible as it was filed after the two-month deadline under Rule 49 of the Rules of Procedure. The judge-rapporteur rejected the application and retrospectively extended the deadline to 23 July 2024 under Rule 9(3)(a) RoP, finding that technical issues with the CMS constituted exceptional circumstances beyond the respondent's reasonable control.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-001260

Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited

This procedural order concerns Oerlikon's application under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure to file an eighth auxiliary request (AR8) to amend European Patent EP 2 145 848 B1 in infringement proceedings against Himson Engineering. The court refused the application, finding that AR8 was not an effective response to the new prior art attack based on US '795, could have been introduced earlier with respect to DE '042, was not capable of influencing the outcome, and violated Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC.

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC-001259

Anonymous Claimant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV

This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Court of First Instance, Local Division Brussels) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 331 036. Following an Interim Conference, the court addressed settlement prospects, evidence offers, the value of the case, and guidelines for the oral hearing. The court determined the value of the case at €250,000, rejected one evidence offer as moot, and set detailed procedural directions for the upcoming oral hearing.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

patent denied · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot and Security Technology reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01420 covering patent 11,562,402. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under settlement provisions.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs covering a security‑system patent, leaving the institution in place.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01400

Klein Tools responded to Milwaukee Electric Tool’s request for Director Review, arguing the Board correctly instituted the IPR under Fintiv and §314. The petitioner emphasizes that the ITC overlap arguments are misplaced and that the merits of the petition are strong.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

Security Technology, LLC asks the PTAB Director to deny institution of an IPR filed by Home Depot, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv discretionary factors and that the petitioner's expert testimony is weak. The request highlights the close timing of the district‑court trial and the substantial prior investment in parallel litigation.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

Home Depot and Security Technology settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,562,402. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.

· IPR2024-01391

Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01391 concerning U.S. Patent 9,586,659 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) before any final decision.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. argues that Klein Tools' IPR petition fails on obviousness grounds, citing cumulative prior art and lack of motivation, and seeks denial of institution.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

Milwaukee Electric Tool and Keter seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over the Packout storage system. The owners argue the panel misapplied Fintiv factors, especially claim and prior‑art overlap, and failed to consider the lack of a Sotera stipulation. The petition asks for discretionary denial of institution.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01400

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over a storage‑container patent, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv factors and ignored claim overlap with a parallel ITC proceeding.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

Home Depot filed a response to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that all Fintiv factors support instituting the IPR and contesting the owner’s claim‑construction positions. The petitioner also pledged not to raise §103 defenses in the parallel district‑court case.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

Court decision.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

patent denied · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot and RavenWhite Security settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,594,823. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after institution, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement confidential.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, leaving the institution of RavenWhite Security's patents intact.

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.

· IPR2024-01391

Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and kept separate from the patent record.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

RavenWhite Security has filed a Request for Director Review to block an IPR on its web‑cookie patent, arguing the PTAB panel misapplied the Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors and that the petitioner’s obviousness arguments are weak. The request seeks a denial of institution for claims 1‑10.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

Home Depot and RavenWhite Security have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on patent 10,594,823. The Board is asked to authorize termination of the proceeding.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

Home Depot filed a response defending the PTAB’s institution decision, asserting that all Fintiv factors favor proceeding with the IPR and that the Board correctly interpreted claim language.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.