European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 18 of 67 · 1,592 total
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
This UPC decision addresses both infringement and revocation claims concerning EP 2 387 547 B1. While the court provided extensive legal guidance on patent scope, exhaustion, and indirect infringement, it ultimately found the defendants liable for damages due to infringement. Despite this finding of liability, the main lawsuit was dismissed, indicating a complex outcome where remedies were granted but the overall claim failed.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd; CUPOWER Europe GmbH
In a complex infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 011 218 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC issued an order suspending the proceedings. This decision was made at the request and agreement of all involved parties, who are currently engaged in parallel settlement discussions. The suspension allows the parties to pursue a negotiated resolution without immediate judicial intervention.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH; expert e-Commerce GmbH
This decision from the UPC Board of Appeal addresses procedural matters following an oral hearing in a complex infringement and revocation case. The claimant, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., attempted to submit additional written arguments after the proceedings concluded. The Court firmly ruled that once the oral phase is complete, the matter is ready for judgment, and further submissions are generally inadmissible unless explicitly permitted by the court under strict rules.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for rectification filed by Microsoft following a default judgment issued against Suinno. Microsoft sought to amend the decision to include a notice (R. 356.3 RoP) warning that any subsequent default would be final. The Court rejected this application, emphasizing that the subject matter of appeal proceedings is strictly limited to what was requested by the parties. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests must be raised within the scope of the initial litigation or appeal.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This UPC decision is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement and revocation action concerning egg packaging (EP 2 755 901 B1). The court has meticulously defined the technical scope of the dispute for the upcoming oral hearing. Key focus areas include the interpretation of structural elements, such as the retainment projection and nose, and the specific manufacturing method involving balancing deformations during suction molding. This order sets a clear roadmap for both parties to prepare their arguments.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In a procedural order concerning the deposit of physical objects, HL Display AB successfully opposed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s request to submit exhibits related to its products. The UPC Court of First Instance rejected the application because the defendant failed to provide a timely and adequate explanation for the late filing of these crucial items. This decision underscores the court's strict adherence to procedural deadlines and requirements in managing evidence during infringement actions.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a complex infringement case involving Huawei and MediaTek concerning 5G-capable Dimensity chips, the UPC issued an interim procedural order focusing on confidentiality. The court granted extensive protection for trade secrets related to licensing agreements, limiting access to highly sensitive information only to specific parties. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for managing confidential data during litigation, which is crucial in high-tech patent disputes.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.BALLINNO B.V.
In this procedural order stemming from a revocation action, the UPC Central Division addressed the release of security for legal costs. Following a settlement agreement between Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH and BALLINNO B.V., the court granted the application to transfer the €25,000 security deposit from the defendant to the claimant. This decision highlights how procedural mechanisms can be adapted when parties reach an amicable resolution during litigation.
Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application regarding confidentiality during appeal proceedings. Kodak, the appellant, sought a new confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP, citing the need to protect trade secrets in its grounds of appeal. The UPC ruled that since the original CFI orders explicitly stipulated their continuation into appellate stages, the requests for a new regime were superfluous and dismissed.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In this procedural order, HL Display AB opposed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s request to deposit physical objects related to the infringement case EP2432351. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the application. The court found that BSRP failed to provide a sufficient justification for filing these exhibits late, leading to the rejection of their procedural motion.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
In this appeal concerning a request for simultaneous interpretation, the UPC Court of Appeal ruled against Yealink's application. The court emphasized that while procedural fairness is important, the adversarial nature of UPC proceedings means such requests must be highly justified. The ruling clarifies that general difficulties faced by non-native speakers or company officials do not automatically mandate court-ordered translation services.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
In this UPC case involving a SEP dispute over Android technology, the respondent sought an extension of the reply period citing complex technical and FRAND defense requirements. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that the existing procedural deadlines are already designed to accommodate the complexities of international patent litigation. This decision reinforces the principle that parties must manage their timelines effectively within the UPC's structured framework.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. v.LAMA FRANCE
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an intervention application filed by LIFE 365 in a complex infringement and revocation case involving LAMA France and HPDC. The court ruled that because the main procedure had already been closed following the parties' agreement, the request for withdrawal was valid. This ruling clarifies the procedural mechanism for withdrawing interventions when the underlying litigation has concluded.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
Huawei initiated infringement proceedings against MediaTek regarding its Dimensity series chips, which are alleged to infringe EP 3 905 840 B1. A key procedural development was the dispute over the disclosure of confidential license agreements and licensee names. The UPC court issued a detailed order granting protective measures under Rule 262A VerfO, strictly limiting access to sensitive information while allowing the infringement case to proceed.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Inventronics GmbH
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG initiated infringement proceedings against Inventronics GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC. However, recognizing that both parties were engaged in ongoing settlement discussions, the court issued an order suspending the entire case. This decision allows the parties to resolve their dispute outside of litigation while maintaining the legal status quo.
expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addressed an appeal concerning a cost determination following the revocation of a patent. The claimant, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, challenged the procedural deadlines set out in the Rules of Procedure (VerfO), arguing they conflicted with the European Patent Convention (EPÜ). However, the court rejected the request for admission to appeal, concluding that the legal questions raised had already been settled by prior rulings. This case reinforces the established procedural framework within the UPC and limits the scope for seeking preliminary interpretations from the CJEU on internal UPC procedures.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected Centripetal Limited's request for a final written brief in an ongoing infringement action. The claimant sought to introduce a substantially new functionality reading late in the proceedings. The Panel ruled that allowing such a late submission would violate procedural fairness and compromise the preparation time for the upcoming oral hearing, thereby maintaining the original rejection order.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for provisional measures related to EP 1 998 686 B1. Although the core issue is infringement, the respondents raised challenges regarding the patent's validity. The court ruled that given these dual issues—infringement and invalidity—it was appropriate to enhance the judicial panel by appointing an additional technically qualified judge. This proactive step ensures early expert involvement in complex medical technology cases.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd.; Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Benia New Material Technology Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich separated an infringement action involving Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. against four Chinese defendants. The separation was necessitated by differing service timelines for the defendants, allowing proceedings to continue against two parties while awaiting service on the remaining two. This decision highlights the court's flexibility in managing complex multi-defendant cases under the UPC framework.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc.; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUS France S.a.r.l.; ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l.; ASUS Europe B.V.; Ninepoint GmbH
This procedural order addressed a request by multiple defendants (ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH) to extend the time limit for filing their statement of defence. The extension was sought because they required access to an unredacted exhibit related to the claimant's entitlement to assert the patent-in-suit. The court partially granted the request, finding that a short extension was justified to compensate for the delay in accessing minor evidence, while rejecting demands for a full extension.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney Company Limited
In a procedural order concerning an infringement claim, Adeia Guides Inc. successfully petitioned the UPC Court of First Instance for a deadline extension. The request was made due to late-filed exhibits in the ongoing litigation against various Disney entities. This ruling ensures that both parties have adequate time to respond to complex legal filings in this high-stakes patent dispute.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Vivisol B BV
This UPC decision addressed a request for improvement regarding the costs awarded in an earlier proceeding. The court found and corrected a clear arithmetic error in the calculation of the total costs payable by the respondent. While affirming the principle that R. 353 RoP is limited to factual/mathematical corrections, the ruling successfully adjusted the financial outcome based on the identified mistake.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against Moderna addressed extensive jurisdictional challenges raised by the large group of Moderna entities. Moderna argued that several subsidiaries lacked sufficient domicile or connection to the UPC territory for the court to exercise jurisdiction. The Court rejected these objections, confirming its competence based on established connectivity principles (e.g., co-defendants in the same country). This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings concerning Spikevax.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving major mobile technology players. The Court granted the request to switch from German to English, aligning with the patent's granted language. This ruling emphasizes that fairness and the operational realities of multinational defendants—who communicate internationally in English—must be weighed heavily against local court preferences.