European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 11 of 67 · 1,592 total
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Blankenhorn GmbH
This UPC Local Chamber decision in Mannheim concerns a cost determination procedure related to EP 4 001 835. The case was resolved not through judicial ruling but because the claimant and respondent reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the court accepted the withdrawal of the request and terminated the costs proceedings.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the composition of a confidentiality club in an ongoing infringement/revocation action involving Solvay Specialty Polymers and Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical. The Court confirmed the initial order, upholding the inclusion of non-employee experts from the claimant's economic unit. The ruling clarifies that access to confidential information is not strictly limited to direct employees, significantly broadening who can be included for effective litigation.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 850 660, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf granted an extension of time periods requested by Micron Semiconductor and its affiliates. The defendants argued that the sheer volume of technical evidence (approximately 3,000 pages) submitted by Yangtze Memory Technologies required more time for analysis, especially considering potential prior use rights. The Court agreed, emphasizing the need to afford defendants a sufficient right to be heard while ensuring effective case management across multiple parallel proceedings.
STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
In a significant decision regarding claim construction, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected an application for provisional measures concerning an electropolishing medium. The dispute hinged on whether a specific emulsion met the patent's requirement for a 'non-conductive fluid.' The court ruled that by analyzing the surrounding liquid as a whole, the conductivity exceeded the claimed limit, thus finding no infringement. This case underscores the critical importance of precise claim interpretation when dealing with complex chemical formulations like emulsions in UPC litigation.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v.Occlutech GmbH
In a critical decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect against an injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division. The court emphasized that exceptions to the rule requiring manifest error are narrowly applied. This ruling reinforces the principle that patentees can secure immediate protection against infringement unless the appellant meets a high burden of proof.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC Local Division dismissed the Defendants' demand that Align Technology provide security for legal costs. The Defendants had argued that due to the Applicant being based in the United States, enforcement of any potential costs award would incur substantial and potentially non-reimbursable expenses. However, the Court found that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof, specifically by not providing evidence on the foreign law applicable for enforcement in the US. This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required when seeking security for costs within the UPC.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o.
Brita SE successfully obtained an interim injunction from the UPC Local Chamber against Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. regarding the alleged infringement of EP 2 131 940 B1. The patent covers a specific water treatment device featuring a cartridge with a rotatable locking shaft for securing the connection head. The court ordered an immediate cessation of offering and placing on the market of the infringing cartridges across multiple EU member states. This decision highlights the UPC's efficiency in granting urgent provisional measures to protect IP rights.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. to suspend the enforcement of a CFI-ordered information disclosure mandate from HL Display AB. The core dispute centered on whether the confidential business information requested (such as origin, distribution channels, and profits) should be withheld pending appeal. The Court ultimately rejected the suspension request, affirming that while confidentiality is important, it does not automatically negate the need for the patent proprietor to gather evidence necessary for damage calculation.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent (EP 3 223 320). The central dispute revolved around whether the patent claims represented an impermissible expansion beyond the disclosure in the original international application. While the court discussed principles regarding translation and scope, it ultimately dismissed the appeal. This outcome is significant as it reinforces the validity of patents even when challenges based on improper claim drafting or scope extension are raised.
Dolle A/S v.FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp.z.o.o.
This Lokalkammer decision addressed a patent infringement suit concerning a roof hatch/staircase (Dachbodentreppe). While the claim for infringement was ultimately dismissed, the court delivered crucial legal guidance. The ruling reinforced the strict 'direct and unambiguous derivation' standard for determining if an invention is the same as one in an earlier application under Article 87 EPC. It also set a clear procedural boundary, prohibiting parties from introducing validity arguments (like lack of inventive step) during oral hearings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent, focusing heavily on the interpretation of prior art and the scope of claims. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim did not impermissibly extend beyond the content of the earlier application. This ruling reinforces strict standards for interpreting disclosures in patent applications, particularly when dealing with translations of international filings.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al.
This procedural order in the UPC case between Adeia Guides Inc. and The Walt Disney Company addresses key logistical and financial aspects of a complex infringement and revocation dispute. The Court successfully set the monetary value of the claims at €12 million, streamlining the financial scope for both parties. Additionally, the court granted confidentiality measures requested by Disney, allowing the litigation to proceed under agreed-upon privacy terms.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al.
Nokia sued the Geely group (including brands like Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart) for infringing a patent related to efficient resource allocation in mobile communication systems. The court addressed the complex issue of jurisdiction over multiple corporate entities within a large group structure. By upholding the unified action under Article 33(1)(b), the Mannheim Local Court ensured procedural efficiency, allowing Nokia's claim against all subsidiaries to proceed simultaneously.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order addressed a request by Belparts Group N.V. to join its counterclaim for infringement (pending before the CD Paris) with IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH's revocation action (before the CD Paris), and subsequently, to refer another case between divisions. The Court ultimately rejected this connection joinder request. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of R. 340 RoP, emphasizing that procedural choices made by parties must align with the core principles of efficient justice and avoiding conflicting decisions.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a request by VIVO to stay the main infringement proceedings and grant an extension of time limits in light of pending appeals regarding confidentiality orders and jurisdictional challenges (PO). The Court of Appeal ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure. The ruling reinforces that specialized provisions like R. 21.2 RoP are narrowly construed and that procedural management requests must generally be directed to the Court of First Instance.
Occultech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A.
Occultech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical for alleged infringement of its medical device patent (EP 1 998 686 B2), specifically concerning the MemoCarna occluders. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, finding that the necessary prerequisites for an injunction were not satisfied. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain provisional measures in UPC proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a request by VIVO to stay the main infringement proceedings and extend deadlines in light of pending appeals concerning confidentiality orders and jurisdictional challenges (FRAND determination). The Court of Appeal firmly rejected this request. The ruling reinforces the hierarchical nature of UPC procedure, clarifying that requests for staying or extending time limits must generally be handled by the Court of First Instance, not the Court of Appeal, unless truly exceptional circumstances are proven.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. sought provisional measures to inspect and preserve evidence related to the 'InverJet' product manufactured by Inverquark Deutschland GmbH, alleging patent infringement of EP 3 653 275 B8 (Counter-Current Swimming Device). The court examined the request for inspection at a trade fair booth but ultimately dismissed the application. This decision highlights the stringent procedural requirements under the UPC for obtaining evidence preservation measures prior to filing main infringement proceedings.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a cost guarantee in an ongoing infringement appeal case involving textile technology. The court ruled that while the respondent's argument to exclude previously awarded first-instance costs was rejected, it set a specific financial requirement. Bhagat Textile Engineers must provide a €19,000 guarantee to Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG to proceed with the appeal.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In this preliminary objection case, Sun Patent Trust successfully defended its infringement action against Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether the UPC had jurisdiction to rule on FRAND terms alongside patent infringement of an SEP. The Court decisively rejected VIVO's argument, establishing that determining FRAND compliance is not a standalone claim but rather a necessary condition precedent for granting relief in an infringement action under Article 32(1)(a) UPCA. This ruling reinforces the integrated nature of SEP litigation within the UPC framework.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a significant preliminary objection ruling, the UPC rejected Vivo's challenge to its jurisdiction over an SEP infringement case. The core dispute centered on whether seeking a determination of FRAND terms constituted an independent claim outside the scope of the Unified Patent Convention (UPC). The Court clarified that while FRAND assessment is critical for SEPs, it is intrinsically linked to the main action for infringement and does not render the entire claim inadmissible. This decision reinforces the UPC's competence in handling complex SEP litigation involving both infringement and licensing conditions.
FAST IP, LLC v.Skechers USA Deutschland GmbH; Skechers S.a.r.l; Skechers U.S.A., Inc.; Skechers EDC SPRL; Skechers USA Italia Srl; Skechers USA France SAS (collectively, Skechers)
This procedural decision addressed an application to change the language of proceedings in a UPC infringement case from German to English. The Court sided with the defendants, Skechers, who argued that their global corporate structure and the patent's original grant language favored English. The ruling reinforces the principle that the defendant's position is decisive when assessing fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA, even if the claimant initially chose a different official language.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This procedural order in UPC_CFI_555/2024 addresses a complex infringement and revocation action brought by Malikie Innovations Ltd. against Nintendo Co., Ltd. The court admitted numerous applications, including changes to the patent claims and new prior art documents (D10-D20). A key focus was balancing strict procedural rules regarding late inventive step attacks with pragmatic judicial management of the case, allowing for contested submissions while reserving final decisions on complex issues for the panel.
BFexaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request by NVIDIA Corporation for security for costs against BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG. Despite evidence presented regarding Claimant 2's severe liquidity issues, the Court ruled that security was necessary. The judge rapporteur set the required amount at EUR 80,500.00, emphasizing proportionality while safeguarding the Defendants' potential legal expenses.