European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 12 of 67 · 1,592 total
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This procedural order in UPC_CFI_537/2024 addressed critical issues regarding claim scope and evidence admissibility in an infringement and revocation action. The court allowed extensive amendments to the patent claims, provided they maintained a reasonable structure (two strains of auxiliary requests). Furthermore, it admitted new prior art documents introduced by both sides, ensuring that the case can proceed with a comprehensive review of validity and infringement.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
This UPC decision concerns a motion to review an urgent order for evidence preservation, inspection, and seizure granted by Prinoth S.p.A. against Xelom s.r.l. The dispute centers on alleged infringement of patents related to snow groomers (battipista). The Tribunal upheld the original protective measure, emphasizing that preliminary injunctions based on urgency require only a statistical likelihood of evidence destruction, not concrete proof. This ruling provides important guidance on the scope and quantification of damages in urgent IP proceedings.
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v.AWM s.r.l.
In a significant decision, the UPC Court of First Instance revoked patent EP 2726230 B1 after finding that prior art disclosures by AWM s.r.l., through the marketing of older JIT machines, invalidated the claims. The infringement action brought by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG was subsequently dismissed. This case underscores the critical importance of thorough prior art searches and the impact of pre-filing commercial activity on patent validity in UPC proceedings.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.
In a significant ruling for the plastics industry, the UPC Local Division of Paris dismissed Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll's infringement action against the First group. The case centered on the 'Connecto®invisible' hydraulic gutter grille technology (EP3272938). Despite detailed claims regarding manufacturing and offering infringing products, the court found no evidence of literal or equivalent infringement. Furthermore, RPN was ordered to cover the respondents' legal costs provisionally.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al.
In this UPC case concerning the infringement of a patent covering Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene Multifilament Yarn, Avient Protective Materials B.V. sought an alternative method of service against its Chinese defendants. After months of unsuccessful attempts via The Hague Service Convention (HSC), the Court ruled in favor of the Claimant. The court authorized service by German bailiff at a trade fair in Düsseldorf, ensuring that the legal proceedings could proceed without delay or risk of default judgment.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In a significant decision concerning point-of-care diagnostics, the UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action brought by bioMérieux against EP 3 756 767 B1. The Court found that the patent remained valid when amended by Auxiliary Request 3 (AR 3). This ruling reinforces the importance of auxiliary requests in preserving patent rights and sets a precedent regarding the proportionality of validity challenges before the UPC.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
In a provisional measures case concerning CGM technology, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought relief against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the patent EP3988471. While the Court ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, it issued a significant ruling on costs. The Court found that despite the dismissal, Abbott must pay an interim award of EUR 400,000 to the Defendants to cover their legal expenses. This decision highlights the UPC's strict approach to cost allocation in preliminary proceedings, emphasizing the principle of proper and fair administration of justice even when the main application fails.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V., Solvest Participatie V B.V., Solvest Participatie VI B.V., Solvest Participatie VII B.V., Solvink B.V., De Kleine Beuk B.V., Hemtech d.o.o.
In this preliminary objection case, Honeywell challenged jurisdictional and competence arguments raised by multiple defendants against its infringement suit concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Local Division Mannheim rejected all objections, clarifying key aspects of UPC jurisdiction. The court held that the requirements for local division competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA are met without needing an extra 'connection,' and affirmed that liability can extend to instigators even if they are not domiciled in the EU.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical for the imminent infringement of its patent covering braided occlusion devices. The court's final order emphasized that CE-mark approval is a mandatory prerequisite for legal market entry in the EU. This ruling highlights the critical role of regulatory compliance (specifically MDR) when assessing potential infringement and market readiness within UPC proceedings.
Amycel LLC v.PL
In a default judgment case concerning mushroom strains, the UPC confirmed infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2 held by Amycel LLC. The court specifically addressed patentability issues, ruling that the subject matter (a specific mushroom strain) is not excluded from protection under Art. 53(b) EPC. This decision reinforces the enforceability of plant-related patents within the UPC territory and confirms significant remedies, including permanent injunctions and interim damages.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a significant decision involving prosthetic heart valves, the UPC Central Division addressed both a revocation action and a counterclaim for infringement. The court ultimately found that several claims of EP 4 151 181 B1 were infringed by Meril's products (Octacor/Octapro System). Furthermore, the ruling established strict compliance measures, including substantial penalty payments for non-adherence to the injunction orders. This case highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where validity challenges run parallel to infringement enforcement.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing a patent infringement action when parties reach an out-of-court settlement. The Court permitted Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong to withdraw its claim against LONGi Solar and related entities, provided no party had a legitimate interest in the merits of the case. Furthermore, the Claimant was granted reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the alleged infringement of its CGM sensor assembly patent (EP4344633). The UPC Local Division granted a significant injunction, ordering the defendants to cease certain activities and provide detailed information on their product's origin and distribution channels within the UPC territory. While the Court did not rule definitively on the merits of infringement, this order provides Abbott with immediate leverage by restricting market access for the accused products.
AX Wireless, LLC v.Xiaomi Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a request by the defendants to align and extend key deadlines in the case against AX Wireless, LLC. The court found that harmonizing the timelines for all parties, including those served internationally, would significantly improve case management efficiency. This decision underscores the Court's focus on practical, efficient procedural handling while respecting statutory requirements.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought an injunction against Niche Biomedical, Inc., alleging infringement of its patent EP 3 421 081 B1 concerning neuromodulation systems. The Munich Local Division ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The court emphasized that in such proceedings, attempts to modify claims to address validity doubts are typically rejected, highlighting a strict standard for injunctive relief. This decision underscores the high bar required for patentees seeking urgent interim protection under the UPC.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding alleged infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The court granted a preliminary injunction and imposed significant penalty payments, demonstrating the immediate enforcement power available under the UPC system for interim relief. This case underscores the importance of timely action when seeking protection against counterfeit or infringing components in the fast-moving printer cartridge market.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH a.o.
In this cost decision case, the UPC Local Division Munich ruled in favor of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH and its affiliates. The court awarded a substantial sum of EUR 771,649.56 to cover Edwards' legal costs incurred during the proceedings related to EP patent 3669828. The ruling emphasized that given the overall complexity of the case, the judge-rapporteur has broad discretion and may award costs even if specific disputed elements (like travel details) are marginal.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
In this procedural case, the UPC Local Division allowed Brita SE to withdraw its counterclaim for revocation against EP 2 387 547. Although a decision on the revocation claim had previously been rendered by the Panel, the court ruled that withdrawal was permissible because no final judgment existed and the appeal period remained open. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust their litigation strategy even after initial rulings.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures against a Chinese defendant, the court addressed the critical issue of service failure under international conventions. Despite official notification from Chinese authorities that the company did not exist at the provided address, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted the applicant's request. The ruling established that if the applicant provides credible evidence verifying the accuracy of the registered address, prior attempts can be deemed good service, ensuring the applicant's urgent legal rights are protected.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.Insulet Corporation; EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for file inspection by legal counsel (HSF Kramer LLP). The Court analyzed the need for HSF to access redacted documents from related proceedings, balancing transparency against party interests. While denying broad access to exhibits due to concerns over scoping and proportionality, the Judge Rapporteur granted limited access to key pleadings, affirming that the reasoned decision itself provides sufficient insight into the case.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC Cost Decision addressed Insulet Corporation's request for cost compensation against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The Court found that while the applicant was entitled to recovery of reasonable and proportionate costs related to the merits proceedings, the requested amount needed significant reduction. Key factors influencing this decision included the lack of clarity in submitted invoices, the overlap between arguments presented before the UPC and the Court of Appeal, and the exclusion of costs relating to the enforcement phase. The final award granted Insulet an additional EUR 113,773.40.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a critical hurdle in the infringement action brought by Leap Tools Inc. against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC: serving the Statement of Claim. After multiple failed attempts to locate the Defendants' current addresses, the Claimant successfully argued that good reason existed for alternative service. The Court granted permission to serve Defendant 2 at their CEO's business address in Poland, allowing the infringement proceedings to move forward.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a procedural decision before the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC, Huawei Technologies withdrew its infringement claim against MediaTek. Concurrently, MediaTek's subsidiary also withdrew its counterclaim for revocation of the patent EP 3 567 731. The court formally accepted both withdrawals and declared the proceedings terminated. While no substantive judgment was reached on infringement or validity, the decision provided clarity on procedural matters, including the partial reimbursement of court fees.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.
In this UPC case concerning egg packaging technology (EP 2 755 901 B1), Hartmann Packaging A/S sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH for infringement and simultaneously filed a revocation counterclaim. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent rights. Crucially, the court also rejected the revocation counterclaim, affirming the validity of the patent while providing important guidance on interpreting 'the same invention' under Article 87 EPC.