European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 2 of 67 · 1,592 total
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding the determination of FRAND license terms in essential patent litigation. Vivo challenged the Paris Local Division's ruling that deferred the FRAND claim to the main proceedings, arguing it lacked UPC competence. The CoA affirmed this deferral, establishing that the FRAND determination is intrinsically linked to and dependent upon the finding of infringement, thus making it a matter for the main court to decide.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict procedural requirements governing ex parte orders for evidence preservation. Ecovacs sought an inspection order against Roborock, but the Local Division revoked it due to incomplete disclosure by Ecovacs regarding Roborock's direct market activities. The Court of Appeal upheld this revocation, stressing that applicants have a heightened duty under R. 192.3 RoP to disclose all material facts influencing the court’s decision, regardless of whether those facts are later introduced in the main action.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision addressed an infringement suit brought by TRUMPF against IPG regarding a patent covering laser beam generation using multi-clad fibers. Although the court ultimately dismissed the main infringement claim, it issued a significant finding that the defendant is liable for further damages resulting from the alleged infringing activities. The counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was also rejected, leaving the patent valid but with complex financial implications.
La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS; Substipharm
In this UPC CFI decision concerning a revocation action, the court addressed the defendants' request for security for costs against the claimant. Despite the claimant asserting SME status and arguing that such an order would restrict access to justice, the Court found the defendant's arguments regarding the claimant's financial vulnerability credible. Consequently, the court ordered the claimant to provide €75,000 in security within six weeks, setting a specific amount while rejecting the defendants' demands for higher sums or faster deadlines.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
In this UPC cost decision concerning EP 3 784 233, the Court confirmed that once a patent has been definitively revoked by the EPO's Opposition Division, any parallel revocation action before the UPC becomes redundant. The panel ordered the disposal of the proceedings and ruled on costs, awarding Neurocrine substantial compensation for its legal efforts. This case underscores the importance of monitoring opposition proceedings when pursuing invalidity claims in the UPC.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE INC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses complex jurisdictional challenges raised by multiple respondents against a patent infringement suit. The court ruled that the UPC is incompetent to adjudicate claims concerning alleged infringements occurring outside the EU, specifically naming Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland. Crucially, the claimant failed to meet evidentiary requirements regarding assets within the jurisdiction necessary for certain jurisdictional arguments under Regulation 1215/2012. This case reinforces strict limits on the UPC's international reach.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated
In this complex international patent dispute, Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement action against Qualcomm Incorporated concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399, which relates to integrated circuits and transaction methods. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement claim because the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its allegations during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the stringent burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is insufficient when a party bears the burden of proving infringement.
BFexaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court dismissed the infringement claim against NVIDIA regarding EP 3 743 812. The patent relates to dynamic resource allocation in heterogeneous computing systems. While the main infringement suit failed, the defendant's counterclaim for revocation was not addressed because the condition precedent (the failure of the infringement action) was met. This case reinforces key procedural principles regarding claim construction and contingent counterclaims within the UPC framework.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a significant ruling concerning network technology patents, the Local Division Munich dismissed the infringement claim brought by Network System Technologies LLC against Qualcomm Incorporated. The court found that the Claimant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding patent infringement during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the stringent evidentiary requirements placed on claimants in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is insufficient without conclusive factual substantiation.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In this complex international patent dispute involving Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC over EP 1 875 683, the UPC Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its allegations of infringement during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the high burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is sufficient when a claimant fails to present conclusive evidence.
BFexaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation
In this complex UPC case involving BFexaQC AG against NVIDIA Corporation, the court addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 743 812, which covers dynamic resource allocation in heterogeneous computing systems. Beyond the merits, the decision provided important procedural guidance regarding the non-binding nature of applicant statements during the grant phase and the conditions under which a conditional counterclaim for revocation can be handled.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent EP 1 552 669 in France and Germany. The revocation followed the dismissal of the infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC against Qualcomm subsidiaries. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively prove its case, allowing the Defendants' counterclaim for revocation to succeed. This decision underscores the high burden of proof required in UPC infringement proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a complex international patent dispute involving Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC, the UPC Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 1 875 683. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its claims during the oral hearing, despite arguments regarding evidence production under Rule 190 RoP. This decision highlights the high burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, particularly when asserting complex technical infringement.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. v.F. Hoffmann- La Roche AG
This UPC appeal case involved an application for interim measures concerning patent EP 1 962 668, filed by Menarini Diagnostics against Roche. After the initial proceedings at the Local Division of Düsseldorf, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the claimants withdrew their request for provisional relief. The UPC Board of Appeal accepted this withdrawal and terminated the case, highlighting the importance of amicable resolution in complex patent litigation.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated
In this significant UPC decision, Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement suit against Qualcomm regarding EP 1 552 669. However, the Defendants successfully mounted a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich ultimately revoked the patent in France and Germany, dismissing the infringement action entirely. This case underscores the high burden of proof required by claimants to conclusively demonstrate patent infringement before the UPC.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU; Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.; Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH; Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the retrospective extension of deadlines in preliminary measures proceedings. The Defendants sought to overturn a Local Division order that granted an extension based on human error, arguing it circumvented strict rules for missed deadlines (R. 320 RoP). The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division's ruling, emphasizing judicial discretion and procedural stability over challenging the initial decision.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request by Hologic, Inc. to submit further written arguments in an ongoing UPC case against Siemens Healthineers AG. The Court ultimately rejected this request, citing concerns over unnecessary delay and insufficient justification provided by the Claimant. This decision reinforces the court's strict management of proceedings under the Rules of Procedure (RoP), balancing the right to be heard against procedural efficiency.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal concerning provisional measures in a dispute over hair care appliances. The court upheld the injunction against Dreame's products but clarified key legal principles regarding claim construction and the scope of injunctive relief. Specifically, it ruled that infringement risk extends beyond previously committed acts, strengthening the basis for broad interim protection.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson successfully appealed a provisional measures decision against Dreame's hair styling products before the UPC Court of Appeal. The court upheld the injunction and extended its scope to cover newer versions of Dreame's curling attachments, confirming that infringement is sufficient grounds for preventing future unauthorized use. This ruling provides clarity on how courts interpret claim features in relation to physical configurations and reinforces the broad application of provisional measures.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This Court of Appeal decision addresses a complex provisional measures application concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought an injunction against Dreame International and Eurep for infringing EP 3 119 235 with its multi-functional hairdryers. While the court granted the requested provisional measures within the UPC Territory, it simultaneously referred key jurisdictional questions regarding Spain and the role of the authorized representative (Eurep) to the CJEU. This highlights the Court's careful balancing act between immediate injunctive relief and ensuring legal certainty across different EU jurisdictions.
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l.
This Milan Local Division decision addressed a preliminary objection concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case. The defendant argued that since they were based in Italy, the trial must proceed in Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. However, the Court rejected this argument, finding that because the claimant alleged infringing activities across various contracting states (including Germany and via global website presence), the exception to the language rule did not apply. The decision affirms the principle that jurisdiction can be established where infringement occurs or may occur, allowing for flexibility in procedural choices.
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; Zentiva Portugal, LDA
This UPC decision addressed a request for public access to documents from a prior preliminary injunction case involving Boehringer and Zentiva. The Court ruled that while proceedings are generally open to the public, this principle must be balanced against the parties' need to protect sensitive commercial and personal information. Consequently, the Applicant was granted access to the requested pleadings, but only in redacted versions provided by the respondents.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited and Eurep GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involves a complex dispute over provisional measures concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought to prevent infringement by Dreame International and Eurep, who marketed products through websites. The court found jurisdictional questions regarding the role of EU-based intermediaries (Eurep) in facilitating third-state infringement were too complex for it to resolve alone. Consequently, the Court referred key legal questions to the CJEU while simultaneously issuing provisional measures against certain defendants within the UPC Territory.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of an appeal filed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V against a prior infringement judgment issued by the Local Division in favor of HL Display AB. Due to pending settlement discussions, Black Sheep withdrew its appeal with the consent of HL Display. The court formally permitted this withdrawal and addressed the associated application for reimbursement of court fees under the updated Rules of Procedure.