European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 20 of 67 · 1,592 total
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
This UPC decision from Mannheim addresses a procedural motion concerning cost allocation arising from an appeal against a process security order. The court ruled that costs related to defending or challenging such procedural orders cannot be determined separately under Rule 150 of the Rules of Procedure (VerfO). Instead, they must be integrated into the final overall cost assessment following the substantive judgment. Crucially, the application was also deemed moot because the main decision had already established a unified approach to costs.
igus GmbH v.Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
igus GmbH initiated an infringement action against Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. concerning its patent EP 3 912 243 B1, which covers compact cable protection conduits for cleanroom applications. The court issued a default judgment confirming the alleged infringement and granting broad injunctions across UPC member states. This case highlights the enforcement mechanisms available in the UPC against non-EU entities operating within the European market.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG, Cybex Retail GmbH
In a recent procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate two related actions: an infringement claim brought by Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. against Cybex GmbH and its affiliates, alongside a counterclaim for revocation. The court found that proceeding jointly was the most efficient approach, allowing both validity and infringement issues to be assessed under a single, uniform interpretation by the same judicial panel. This decision sets the framework for the full trial, which is yet to commence.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning confidential information, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC restricted access to certain documents submitted by Curio Bioscience Inc. (Defendant) during cost proceedings against 10x Genomics, Inc. (Claimant). The court applied Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262A RoP to protect trade secrets within the litigation process. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to balancing the right to a fair trial with the protection of sensitive commercial information.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request for an extension of time related to a penalty payment enforcement action concerning EP 2 028 981. The court balanced the parties' interests against the need for efficient proceedings, ultimately granting only a two-week extension. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural extensions are limited and do not negate the defendant's original obligation to provide information in due time.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning cost proceedings, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC granted protection for confidential information submitted by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience. The court ruled that specific cost items were indeed trade secrets and restricted access to them. This decision reinforces the practical application of Art. 58 UPCA, balancing the need for confidentiality with the right to an effective remedy in complex litigation.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.; Philips RS North America LLC; Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case concerning advanced brain monitoring technology, the claimant sought permission to amend its statement of claim to reflect a newer version (B2) of the patent instead of the original version (B1). The Court of First Instance dismissed the application for amendment. However, recognizing the technical reality that the B2 version was retroactively valid from the grant date, the court admitted the revised pleading into the case file, ensuring the proceedings proceed on the correct legal basis.
Moderna, Inc. v.Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division issued an R.262A Order in the infringement proceedings between Moderna and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. The order formalizes a detailed confidentiality regime designed to protect trade secrets related to Moderna's Spikevax® and mRESVIA® products. This decision is crucial for biotech companies, demonstrating how the UPC facilitates the protection of sensitive manufacturing data during litigation.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
In this provisional measures case, Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG sought urgent relief against BAG Diagnostics GmbH concerning EP 3 548 898 B1. Although the core infringement dispute remains pending, the court recognized that the respondent was simultaneously challenging the patent's validity. Consequently, the Düsseldorf Local Division proactively ordered the assignment of an additional technically qualified judge to ensure expert handling of the complex technical and legal issues from the outset.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
In this procedural order, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf addressed the complex interplay between an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning several coffee system patents. The court decided to handle both claims jointly under Article 33(3)(a) EPC, streamlining the proceedings. This early decision was deemed efficient given the moderate technical complexity of the subject matter.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
This procedural order addressed a request by UPM-Kymmene Oyj to extend the written phase of a revocation action against International N&H Denmark ApS. The Claimant sought permission for further pleadings, arguing that new arguments made by the Defendant required a response. However, the Court rejected this request, ruling that the Claimant had not demonstrated any jeopardy to its procedural rights and that all relevant issues could be addressed at the scheduled oral hearing.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd sued MediaTek Germany GmbH for patent infringement concerning EP 4 142 215. The court addressed a request by MediaTek to protect confidential information submitted during the proceedings. The UPC granted an order establishing strict confidentiality measures, limiting access to trade secrets to specific parties and counsel. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing public transparency with the protection of sensitive business interests.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC initiated an infringement action against Samsung Electronics concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947, which relates to verifiable device-assisted service policy implementation for data saving. Headwater alleges that various Samsung mobile devices running Android 7 or higher infringe the patent claims. Samsung has countered with a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent based on grounds including lack of inventive step and novelty. The case is currently in procedural stages before the UPC Local Division Munich.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 481 141, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by Anker Innovations and associated entities to stay infringement proceedings. The defendants sought a stay pending a decision on their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich LD. The Court determined that this request must be decided after the oral hearing because the applicability of the FRAND defense depends entirely on the outcome of the main infringement and validity arguments.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a cost claim filed by Samsung Bioepis against Alexion Pharmaceuticals following the dismissal and rejection of provisional measures proceedings. The court found that while the overall application was admissible, several elements of the claimed costs were unreasonable or unsupported by evidence. Key adjustments included limiting travel accommodation reimbursement based on the actual arrival time at the hearing location.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
In a procedural order concerning an infringement and revocation action, the UPC granted protection for confidential information sought by the defendants. The court recognized that specific technical design details of the challenged embodiment qualified as trade secrets under Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the importance of confidentiality measures in complex patent litigation, ensuring sensitive know-how remains protected while maintaining procedural fairness.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf issued an order to address significant ambiguities regarding patent ownership and assignment validity. The Claimant, Ona Patents SL, was challenged on inconsistencies related to its chain of title, particularly concerning assignments made by Ekahau Oy (Counter-Defendant 2). The court did not rule on infringement or revocation but instead mandated the submission of critical legal documents, such as Asset Purchase Agreements and board resolutions, before the written procedure could proceed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by MediaTek Germany GmbH to protect confidential information related to its licensing negotiations with Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court found that these documents constituted trade secrets and issued an order mandating strict confidentiality for all parties involved in the proceedings. This ruling reinforces the protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, even when public disclosure is otherwise expected.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This UPC decision addresses procedural challenges raised by the defendants (Menarini and Sinocare) seeking to postpone an oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings initiated by Abbott regarding CGM system patents. The court firmly rejected the postponement requests, emphasizing the inherent urgency of interim relief applications. This ruling reinforces the principle that scheduling decisions in preliminary relief cases are subject to strict judicial discretion, requiring special circumstances for deviation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a request for confidentiality regarding trade secrets arising from license negotiations between Huawei and MediaTek. The court successfully granted an order classifying specific documents as confidential information. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within UPC proceedings by applying existing rules analogously to ensure secrecy.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving hairpiece technology, the Paris Local Division addressed issues of patent scope and procedural admissibility amidst the claimant's judicial reorganization. While the court found the infringement action admissible, it ultimately rejected all claims against GISELA MAYER GmbH for infringing EP 2404516. Significantly, the decision also mandated that N.J DIFFUSION SARL bear a provisionary cost of €50,000 to cover the respondent's legal fees.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC case concerning an infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek, the court issued a procedural order focused entirely on protecting trade secrets. The defendant successfully petitioned for strict confidentiality measures regarding sensitive information submitted in their defense pleadings. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, ensuring that proprietary knowledge remains shielded from public view and unauthorized access during litigation.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC cost decision addressed the financial claims following a preliminary measures application concerning the pharmaceutical product Epysqli®. The court meticulously reviewed the claimed costs, distinguishing between reasonable expert fees and disproportionate legal representation expenses. While recognizing the necessity of certain travel and expert costs, the court struck down excessive charges from UK solicitors that did not demonstrate efficiency in the proceedings.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for confidentiality regarding technical data and measurement reports in an infringement case involving traffic signaling systems. The court confirmed that certain non-obvious product properties qualify as trade secrets under Article 58 EPC, provided they are kept confidential. While the court granted protection to specific documents submitted by Strabag, it rejected broader requests from both Swarco (the claimant) and Chainzone (the assisting party), setting clear boundaries on information disclosure in UPC proceedings.