European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 21 of 67 · 1,592 total
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf halted proceedings to address critical deficiencies in the Claimant's evidence regarding patent ownership. The court found that the documentation supporting various assignments and authorizations was confusing or incomplete, particularly concerning retroactive approvals. This ruling underscores the necessity for claimants to provide a clear, legally sound chain of title when asserting infringement rights under the UPC.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed Centripetal Limited's request for a further written pleading. The court stressed the importance of adhering to the Rules of Procedure (RoP), stating that pleadings should not be used to introduce new infringement readings late in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to efficient case management and procedural fairness, particularly regarding timely preparation for oral hearings.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
In a significant ruling, the UPC Nordic-Baltic Regional Division found that Sioen NV infringed TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH's patent covering tissue construction for protective clothing. The court granted an injunction requiring the recall and destruction of infringing products and awarded an interim sum of EUR 50,000 to TEXPORT. This decision underscores the effectiveness of the UPC in providing swift remedies against infringement within its territorial scope.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses a request for an extension of deadlines in the infringement action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities regarding patent EP 2 645 714. The court granted the requested time extension, ensuring fairness between all parties involved in the complex litigation. Additionally, the ruling clarified the procedures for handling confidential information submitted during the proceedings under specific UPC Rules of Procedure. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility and careful management employed by the UPC CFI.
Novartis AG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA; ZENTIVA K.S.
This UPC decision on costs addressed the compensation sought by Novartis following a dismissed application to intervene in a related main proceeding. The court emphasized that while legal costs must be proportionate under Art. 69 UPCA, the applicant bears the burden of proof for detailed cost substantiation. By failing to provide sufficient evidence justifying the extensive legal fees incurred across multiple firms, Novartis' claim was significantly reduced.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case, Toyota Motor Europe sought to withdraw a revocation action against Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG concerning patent EP 3 876 490. The Court granted the withdrawal request, formally terminating the proceedings under Rule 265 RoP. Furthermore, the court ruled on the reimbursement of court fees, awarding Toyota a partial refund based on when the withdrawal occurred relative to the procedural stages.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC provisional measures case, Aesculap AG sought to enforce a prior disclosure order against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding specific surgical instruments. The court ruled that while the underlying obligation was already in place, it granted the request for coercive fines (Zwangsgeld). This decision is significant as it provides strong enforcement teeth to discovery and information-gathering orders within the UPC framework, ensuring patentees can effectively compel disclosure from alleged infringers.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France, S.A.S., Samsung Electronics GmbH
In a significant decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the infringement claim brought by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics while simultaneously granting the counterclaim for revocation regarding Claim 1 of EP 3 110 069 B1. The patent covered traffic control mechanisms in wireless devices, specifically related to Android's Data Saver functionality. This outcome highlights that a successful validity challenge can completely negate an infringement claim within the UPC framework.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses an applicant's request for access to case files related to a patent infringement and revocation proceedings involving EP 1 770 912 B1. The court found that the applicant had a legitimate interest in reviewing the historical legal and technical arguments, particularly since the main litigation was already concluded. Access was granted to all relevant documents from the associated procedures (infringement, counterclaim for invalidity, and amendment application), with necessary redactions applied.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
In this UPC decision, N.V. Nutricia and Nestlé Health Science reached a settlement leading to the withdrawal of the infringement action concerning EP 2 359 858 B1. The court confirmed that an estimated assessment is sufficient for valuing actions in settled cases. Although the infringement claim was dropped, the counterclaim for revocation was disposed of, with both parties ultimately bearing their own costs.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In this procedural order concerning a solar technology patent, the UPC Local Division addressed a request for security of legal costs. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, ordering the Claimant to provide EUR 100,000 in security. This decision reinforces the principle that when multiple parties are involved, the determination of cost ceilings must consider the group's overall interest rather than individual liability shares.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses several critical administrative and legal issues in a high-stakes solar technology dispute. The court granted comprehensive confidentiality protections for sensitive information submitted by the defendants, ensuring that trade secrets remain protected throughout the litigation process. Crucially, the panel decided to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, avoiding procedural inefficiency while addressing the technical complexity of the patent.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC Local Division case concerned a procedural application by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG seeking to correct an alleged material error in a prior cost award decision. Oerlikon argued that the initial ruling undervalued their recoverable costs, specifically citing a phrase suggesting an additional €20,000 for the main action. The Court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the entire motivational reasoning of the original judgment consistently supported the final awarded sum of €80,000. This decision reinforces the principle that the full context and motivation of a court order must be considered when assessing clerical errors under ROP 353.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited initiated infringement proceedings against Sumi Agro Limited and its European subsidiary concerning EP patent n° 2 152 073. In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a stay of all proceedings at the request of both parties. This decision effectively pauses the litigation, allowing time for strategic reassessment by the involved companies.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural challenge raised by Discord Inc. and its subsidiary, arguing that the claimant, Malikie Innovations Ltd., failed to comply with German national requirements (Sec. 25 GPA) regarding the appointment of a domestic representative. The Mannheim Local Division rejected this defense, establishing that national procedural rules like Sec. 25 GPA do not govern proceedings before the UPC due to the exhaustive nature of the UPC's own procedural law. This ruling reinforces the principle that the UPC operates independently of specific national jurisdictional formalities.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Jinko Solar against LONGi Solar sets the stage for a major patent dispute concerning solar panel technology. The court has scheduled an interim conference and a full oral hearing, confirming that the proceedings will cover both infringement and validity of the patent. This decision is significant as it moves the complex technical dispute into the active litigation phase within the UPC framework.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG against Roborock entities concerns a request for deadline extensions related to patent EP 3 030 943. The court granted the extension, allowing defendants more time to file their responses and opposition due to the complexity of the matter and coordination with foreign parties. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines while maintaining process economy.
Unspecified v.Essetre Holding spa
In this UPC revocation action, the Court addressed arguments regarding novelty and inventive step for a machine used in machining walls. The core legal discussion centered on claim interpretation, specifically how terms like 'working surface' should be understood within the patent's context. Ultimately, the court rejected the attempt to revoke the patent, maintaining it after incorporating amendments proposed by the defendant.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Ericsson and Asustek sets the stage for a complex patent dispute. The parties have agreed to proceed with both an infringement action by Ericsson and a counterclaim for revocation by Asustek. The Court has scheduled the interim conference and the main oral hearing, indicating that the case is moving forward toward substantive arguments.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
This UPC decision confirms the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures concerning EP 1 957 544 B1. DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC., the applicant, successfully withdrew its request with the agreement of Greenchemicals S.R.L., the defendant. The court formally closed the proceedings and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees to the Applicant. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to discontinue an action.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex application for cost reimbursement following preliminary objection proceedings regarding patent competence. Seoul Viosys sought compensation for costs incurred during the legal dispute over whether the Central or Local Division was competent to hear the revocation action. The Court ruled that while the application was admissible, the recoverable costs were limited because the preliminary objection lacked the technical depth of the main revocation action. Ultimately, a partial award of EUR 11,200 was granted.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order addressed a penalty application filed by Centripetal Limited against Palo Alto Networks following an attempted inspection (saisie) under UPC authority. The Claimant sought penalties because the Defendant allegedly refused to grant access to monitor its network security systems. However, the Court found that the scope of the original inspection order was limited strictly to what was physically present at the premises. Since the requested technical setup and documentation were not available in the sales office, the Defendant's non-compliance could not constitute a breach, leading to the rejection of the penalty request.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.De heer [Name redacted]
This UPC decision addressed a complex costs procedure initiated by OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV against an individual respondent. The claimants sought to significantly increase the recoverable costs beyond the administrative ceiling of €38,000 due to high actual expenses. The Court partially granted the claim, setting the final cost award at €41,656.64 by applying its discretion within the established ceilings for representation and expertise. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding costs and the limits set by administrative decisions in UPC proceedings.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf decided to consolidate two related actions: an infringement lawsuit brought by TRUMPF against IPG Laser, and a counterclaim for revocation filed by IPG. The court determined that handling both claims simultaneously is procedurally efficient and substantively advantageous, ensuring a unified legal interpretation across both validity and infringement issues. This decision sets a precedent for the strategic management of complex UPC cases involving intertwined infringement and invalidity challenges.