European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 22 of 67 · 1,592 total
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
This UPC decision is a procedural order concerning the logistics of an upcoming oral hearing in the Munich Local Division. Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC requested permission to use private interpreters due to facility limitations, which the Court partially granted. This ruling highlights the court's flexibility in accommodating parties' needs while maintaining procedural integrity.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addresses an appeal concerning provisional measures related to patent EP 4 249 647. The core issue was OTEC's request for further written pleadings after STEROS introduced new experimental evidence during the appellate phase. Citing principles of due process, the court allowed OTEC a limited time frame to address these newly presented facts, keeping the main appeal proceedings alive.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
In a case involving Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG and CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled on the withdrawal of an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties mutually agreed to terminate the proceedings before reaching a final judgment on merits. The court formally accepted these withdrawals, concluding the case while also ordering the reimbursement of 60% of the respective court fees paid by each party.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
In a significant case involving HPDC and LAMA, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed simultaneous requests to withdraw claims in an ongoing infringement and revocation dispute. Following mutual agreements and the absence of final judgments, the court granted both parties' withdrawals. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing cases to be closed amicably before a definitive ruling is reached.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the valuation of cases involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and FRAND counterclaims. The Court ruled that a FRAND counterclaim significantly expands the scope and value in dispute beyond the initial infringement action, distinguishing it from a simple defense or a revocation counterclaim. This ruling clarifies that SEPs litigation can involve complex valuations based on licensing terms, even if those fees exceed standard infringement claim values.
Hanshow Germany GmbH v.VusionGroup SA
In a decision concerning the revocation action against EP 3 883 277, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Hanshow Germany GmbH's request to withdraw its appeal. Since VusionGroup SA did not object and no final judgment had been reached, the procedure was closed. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to terminate proceedings amicably while ensuring cost recovery for the withdrawing party.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a significant enforcement ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance imposed severe penalties on Kodak entities for non-compliance with a previous final decision regarding EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm successfully argued that despite clear deadlines and notices, the Defendants failed to execute obligations related to information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from commerce. The court established a multi-tiered penalty structure, starting with an immediate lump sum payment of €100,000, escalating to daily fines, underscoring the UPC's robust enforcement mechanisms.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request for an extension of time related to confidential information protection. The Claimant, QIAGEN Sciences, LLC, sought more time to respond to the Defendants' Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation. The Court granted the extension, emphasizing that statutory deadlines must be adjusted when access to critical, unredacted evidence is delayed.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V. and Easee Holding B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an infringement appeal following an out-of-court settlement between Visibly Inc. and Easee B.V. The court formally permitted the withdrawal, declaring the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling clarified the procedural implications of such a withdrawal, specifically addressing the reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.9 RoP. This case serves as an important reminder for practitioners that settlement can lead to formal closure and fee recovery within the UPC framework.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This procedural order addressed complex issues arising from parallel litigation involving infringement and revocation of EP3178578. The UPC Local Division decided to join two related infringement actions (TIRU v. VALINEA ENERGIE and TIRU v. MAGUIN) for efficient case management, citing the principle of good administration of justice. Crucially, while counterclaims seeking patent revocation were correctly referred to the Central Division, the court denied the request to stay the ongoing infringement proceedings.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC decision involves a complex interplay between patent revocation and infringement claims concerning advanced medical device technology (insulin pumps). EOFLOW challenged Insulet's European Patent EP4201327, while Insulet counterclaimed for infringement. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding the issuance of default judgments and mandated a unitary approach to cost calculations in parallel proceedings. This case highlights the UPC's focus on substantive fairness alongside strict adherence to procedural rules.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This UPC decision addresses procedural matters in a complex patent dispute involving TIRU and MAGUIN regarding the waste incineration process EP3178578. The Panel successfully ordered the joinder of two parallel infringement actions concerning the same furnace product to streamline proceedings. Crucially, while referring revocation counterclaims to the Central Division, the court decided not to grant a stay on the main infringement case, allowing it to proceed under specific conditions.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion regarding cost determination following an earlier ruling. Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a specific cost allocation, but subsequently withdrew its application due to an administrative error. The court accepted this withdrawal, effectively closing the costs procedure without altering the underlying substantive dispute or the initial cost split.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex interplay between patent revocation and infringement claims concerning an insulin pump. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding the issuance of decisions by default, stressing the need for robust evidence rather than relying solely on procedural failures. Additionally, it reinforced the principle of unitary cost application when multiple parties (manufacturer and distributor) are involved in parallel litigation over the same patented technology.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues concerning evidence preservation and deadlines under Rule 198.1 EPGVerfO. The respondent sought to nullify an order because they argued that a change in the deadline's starting point constituted an impermissible extension of time. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that judicial discretion allows for adjusting the start date when expert reports are delayed. This ruling confirms the flexibility of procedural rules to ensure fair access to evidence.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the defendants reached a comprehensive settlement in their UPC infringement and revocation proceedings concerning the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis EP 2628464. The Court confirmed this agreement, effectively closing the case while granting confidentiality to sensitive terms of the deal. This decision highlights how parties can utilize Art. 79 UPCA to resolve complex patent disputes without a full judicial determination on validity or infringement.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In this Central Division revocation action, Sibio Technology Limited challenged the validity of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent EP 3 831 283 B1. The core dispute centered on whether the device's design constituted an inventive step over prior art documents. The Court ultimately dismissed the revocation claim, finding that the claimed invention demonstrated sufficient inventive merit and was not invalidated by the cited prior art. The decision also addressed procedural issues regarding late-filed arguments and the application of Rule 75(3) RoP in subsequent actions, reinforcing principles of flexibility and efficiency within the UPC framework. This ruling provides clarity on how courts assess non-obviousness when a dramatic design change is involved.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
This interim order in the UPC case involving Lenovo and ASUS focuses heavily on procedural matters related to a FRAND objection concerning EP patent 3 682 587. The court granted extensions for both parties to submit their arguments, allowing them to incorporate materials from parallel proceedings into the main litigation. Crucially, the decision confirmed future dates for interim hearings and oral arguments, keeping the infringement case active but focused on procedural progress.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
Edwards Lifesciences successfully sued Meril Life Sciences and associated entities for infringing its patent EP 3 769 722, which covers a low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valves (TAVI). The UPC Court of First Instance found that the defendants' products literally infringe the patented technology. This decision is significant as it reinforces the enforceability of specialized medical device patents within the unified patent court framework, particularly in complex TAVI applications.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC addressed the critical issue of protecting confidential information within an ongoing infringement action involving Sun Patent Trust and Vivo Mobile Communication. The Court meticulously defined what constitutes 'Confidential' and 'Highly Confidential' data related to the patent EP3407524. This order sets stringent access controls, limiting unredacted documents only to authorized legal counsel and experts of the Defendants, thereby balancing the need for full disclosure in litigation with the imperative of protecting trade secrets.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order related to an infringement action, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed critical issues surrounding confidential information disclosure between Sun Patent Trust and Vivo Mobile Communication entities. The court meticulously defined categories for 'Confidential' and 'Highly Confidential' data within the Statement of Claim. This ruling sets strict parameters on who can view unredacted documents, limiting access to authorized legal counsel and necessary external experts, thereby balancing transparency with trade secret protection.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by Malikie Innovations Ltd. to harmonize time periods related to a counterclaim for revocation (CCR) filed by Discord Inc. The court rejected the extension request, confirming that the deadlines would proceed based on the actual date of service of the CCR within the main infringement workflow. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural rules regarding when defense and amendment periods commence in UPC proceedings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This Mannheim Local Division decision addresses the complex jurisdictional interplay between the UPC and national courts regarding European bundle patents validated in the UK. The court confirmed that while infringement can be litigated before the UPC, revocation of the UK-validated national part cannot occur with erga omnes effect through the UPC. Crucially, it allowed the validity defense to proceed within the infringement action, but only with inter partes effect. Ultimately, the infringement claim was dismissed due to successful invalidity challenges.
bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In this complex UPC case involving bioMérieux and Labrador Diagnostics, the Court issued a critical procedural order following an interim conference. Recognizing that the patent EP 3 756 767 B1 faced an overwhelming number of invalidity attacks, the Panel mandated that the challenging party (bioMérieux) significantly narrow its focus. This ruling emphasizes the need for legal rigor and strategic clarity in complex revocation proceedings, ensuring the oral hearing remains focused on the most promising grounds of attack.