European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 24 of 67 · 1,592 total
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc.
Nera Innovations Ltd. brought an infringement suit against various Xiaomi entities regarding its patent on wireless power receivers used in smartphones. The defendants counter-sued seeking revocation of the patent. While the court dismissed the revocation counterclaim, it found that the claimant was responsible for bearing the costs associated with the infringement lawsuit. This decision highlights the UPC's detailed scrutiny of procedural matters, such as the scope of auxiliary claims and the definition of prior art.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed OTEC's request to suspend the effect of an injunction granted by the Court of First Instance against Steros. OTEC sought suspension based on alleged manifest errors and violations of its right to be heard in the initial proceedings. The Court ultimately rejected this application, affirming that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are met. This ruling reinforces the high threshold required for parties seeking to halt enforcement measures while their appeal is pending.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company
In this procedural case concerning an Anti-anti-suit Injunction (AASI), the court addressed the defendants' refusal to properly acknowledge service. The claimant argued that the defendants were deliberately obstructing the legal process by limiting their representation and refusing formal acknowledgment of the AASI. The Mannheim Local Chamber ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that such procedural tactics are invalid and constitute a breach of professional conduct. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring proper due process and compliance with its orders within the UPC framework.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for a complex UPC case involving TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR against Texas Instruments regarding EP 2 746 957. The court has meticulously outlined numerous technical questions, focusing heavily on claim construction related to processor architecture, interrupt handling, and power management features like 'directly coupled' and 'clock gating.' Both infringement and a counterclaim for revocation will be heard at the upcoming oral hearing.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of an appeal against a security for costs order. Chint appealed the Local Division's ruling, arguing that the order was legally flawed. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal entirely, not on the merits of the security requirement itself, but because the initial case management order did not meet the procedural requirements for appeal under UPC rules. This reinforces strict adherence to internal appellate procedures within the UPC.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement action involving InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company group. The defendants successfully argued that the proceedings should be conducted in English, the language of the patent EP3259902, citing fairness and the business language of the involved parties. The court granted this request, setting a precedent for aligning procedural language with the patent's grant language when supported by all relevant parties.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an infringement action concerning solar cell technology. The court ultimately granted the application, requiring the claimant (JingAo) to provide a deposit of € 200,000. The ruling emphasizes that while enforcement difficulties exist in non-EU jurisdictions like China, these do not automatically defeat the need for security; rather, the applicant must demonstrate legitimate concerns regarding enforceability.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a cost allocation dispute following a prior judgment where FUJIFILM sued Kodak for infringement and simultaneously faced revocation counterclaims. The court examined extensive claims by Kodak regarding high legal fees, expert witness expenses, and travel costs incurred during the complex proceedings. While some specific travel and accommodation costs were deemed reimbursable after reduction, the Court firmly rejected the claim for representation costs related to the cost procedure itself, setting clear boundaries on what is recoverable in summary cost decisions.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l.
This interim decision in the Milan Local Division addresses the valuation of a complex patent dispute involving Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against AWM s.r.l. The court was tasked with setting the value for cost assessment purposes, considering both infringement and revocation claims related to high-value mechanical machines. Despite disputes over sales volume and royalty rates, the judge-rapporteur set the value at EUR 2 million for each action, relying on proportionality principles due to a lack of supporting economic data.
Appellant v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request to withdraw an appeal concerning patent infringement proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal because the respondent did not object, thereby concluding the appellate phase. Crucially, while the appellant lost the procedural battle and must cover the costs incurred by the respondent, the specific monetary claim for damages was rejected, mandating that cost determination proceed via a separate procedure.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following a settlement in a revocation action. Tandem Diabetes, which had appealed a dismissal by the Central Division Paris, successfully applied for a refund of 60% of its appeal costs. The ruling confirms that if an action is settled before the written procedure concludes, the party responsible for the initial costs is entitled to this partial reimbursement under UPC Rules of Procedure.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for security for costs in an infringement case involving Headwater Research LLC and several Motorola/Flextronics entities concerning patent EP 3 110 072. The court found that the claimant, Headwater Research LLC, lacked sufficient financial standing to cover potential litigation costs, particularly given its business model as a patent licensing entity with limited operational scale. Consequently, the claimant was ordered to deposit EUR 200,000 for Motorola entities and EUR 100,000 for Flextronics International Europe B.V. This ruling underscores the court's power to enforce financial safeguards in complex UPC proceedings.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
In this UPC decision concerning infringement of EP 3 110 069, the court addressed a motion for security for costs. Despite the defendants having filed counterclaims seeking revocation, the court found that they were entitled to demand financial security from the claimant (Headwater Research LLC). The ruling mandates Headwater to deposit EUR 200,000 for Motorola entities and EUR 100,000 for Flextronics International Europe B.V., highlighting the practical application of cost protection rules in complex UPC litigation.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the court addressed a motion for security for costs. Despite the Claimant's status as an entity primarily focused on licensing, the court found sufficient grounds to mandate that the Claimant provide financial guarantees to the Respondents. This decision reinforces the procedural right of defendants in the UPC to seek cost protection when they perceive the claimant lacks the necessary financial stability to cover litigation expenses.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH, SSAB Europe Oy
This UPC appellate decision addressed an appeal concerning the allocation of legal costs following the withdrawal of a provisional measures application. The court confirmed that even when a case is closed by withdrawal under R. 265 VerfO, the general rules for separate cost determination (R. 150 ff. VerfO) apply. The appellate panel found no grounds to overturn the initial costs decision, which had already conducted a thorough and reasonable assessment of the incurred expenses.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural requirements surrounding appeals in revocation actions. It clarifies that a separate court fee is due for an appeal against the main revocation action and any counterclaim for revocation, regardless of how the CFI combines its decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal fees to both parties following the mutual withdrawal of the underlying actions, setting important precedents on procedural costs.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
In this procedural ruling, Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. sought an extension of its deadline to respond to the defendants' submissions due to technical issues with the UPC CMS. The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected the request, finding that Lenovo failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest for the extension. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural rules within the UPC framework.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a dispute over the scope of access to confidential information in ongoing infringement proceedings. Network System Technologies (NST) sought broader access for its US attorneys, arguing their technical expertise was vital. Qualcomm opposed this request, citing the need to protect sensitive data. The court ultimately sided with Qualcomm, emphasizing that access must be strictly limited and found that NST's existing team structure provided adequate representation without requiring additional attorney access.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG; Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH; Renault S.A.S.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, based on the patent's grant language. The court ruled in favor of the defendants (Renault), establishing that the defendant's position must prevail when balancing interests under Art. 49(5) UPCA. This reinforces the principle that while fairness is key, the claimant's initial choice and the procedural context heavily influence the outcome.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural aspects of a revocation action and its associated counterclaim for revocation. The parties mutually agreed to withdraw both actions, leading to the closure of the proceedings. Crucially, the court clarified that appeals against these two distinct actions require separate court fees, regardless of how the CFI combined the decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal costs based on specific procedural rules.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 3 110 069), the court addressed a motion for security for costs. Although the defendants filed counterclaims seeking revocation, they were still granted the right to demand financial security from the claimant. The ruling emphasizes that cost protection is available even when the defendant has raised a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity, provided there are sufficient doubts regarding the claimant's ability to cover defense expenses.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion concerning the requirement for a third-party intervenor to provide a financial security deposit in an infringement case. The claimant sought to compel Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., who was involved as a third-party intervener, to post EUR 169,000.00. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that while the intervener is treated like a party for cost purposes, ordering security deposits in such circumstances is not warranted.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
In this procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim, Corning Incorporated successfully obtained a two-week extension of time to file its reply and defense. The court grounded its decision in established UPC case law, recognizing that parties must be compensated for periods where they do not have full access to confidential facts presented by opponents. This ruling reinforces the practical application of procedural fairness within the UPC's confidentiality framework.
QUANTIFICARE S.A. v.Canfield Scientific, Inc., Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l., ESTHETEC SAS
In UPC case UPC_CFI_559/2024, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued a procedural order regarding EP 3 156 843 B1. The court utilized its discretion to streamline the litigation process by deciding early that it would handle both the infringement claim brought by QUANTIFICARE S.A. and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Canfield Scientific and others simultaneously. This decision aims to ensure a unified legal interpretation of the patent claims while maximizing procedural efficiency.