European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 25 of 67 · 1,592 total
Visibly Inc. v.Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect in a complex infringement and revocation case. The core issue was the appeal against a CFI order requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs. Given that the main proceedings had been stayed due to the insolvency of the Easee companies, the Court found that continuing the appeals served no purpose. This ruling emphasizes the practical application of procedural rules when external events, such as corporate insolvency, impact ongoing litigation in the UPC.
HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order addressed an applicant's request for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in a terminated revocation action (EP2661892). The Court of First Instance granted redacted access to most documents, finding that the general interest in transparency outweighed concerns about proceeding integrity after termination. However, the court rejected access to specific exhibits containing non-technical information, emphasizing that file inspection must be limited to technical explanations regarding interpretation and validity.
HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order addressed an applicant's request for public access to confidential written pleadings and evidence in a UPC revocation action. The court affirmed the general principle that proceedings are open to the public, even after termination without a final judgment, provided there is no overriding interest in confidentiality. While granting access to redacted documents, the judge also granted leave to appeal due to the need to establish consistent jurisprudence regarding post-termination file confidentiality.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a motion regarding the partial refund of court fees following multiple settlements in an infringement and revocation action concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. Despite reaching agreements, the claimants and respondents sought fee refunds based on procedural rules. The Düsseldorf Local Division denied these requests, holding that because the oral proceedings had already concluded when the settlements were reached, the criteria for reimbursement under UPC Rules could not be satisfied. This ruling emphasizes the court's focus on administrative efficiency and the actual workload generated by complex settlement procedures.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U.
This procedural order addressed an application by a UPC representative firm seeking public access to the file of a concluded revocation action. The Court balanced the general interest in transparency and professional advice against confidentiality concerns, ultimately granting broad access while redacting personal data. The decision highlights the nuanced application of public access rules (R. 262.1(b) RoP) even after proceedings have been terminated by agreement.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U.
This procedural order addressed an application for public access to the register concerning a closed UPC case (UPC_CFI_181/2024). The Court granted Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB access to specific redacted documents, affirming the general principle that proceedings are open to the public after termination. However, recognizing the need for consistent jurisprudence on confidentiality obligations post-access, the court also granted leave to appeal and suspended the order's effects.
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted an extension of time to Palo Alto Networks, Inc., in a patent infringement action brought by Centripetal Ltd. The court recognized that unforeseen global events had created significant logistical obstacles for the defendant's technical team and key personnel. This decision underscores the court's willingness to balance strict adherence to procedural timelines with practical realities faced by parties during exceptional circumstances.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH initiated revocation proceedings against EP 4 019 790, arguing that the patent lacks novelty and inventive step. Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH defended the patent while simultaneously filing counterclaims seeking to maintain or amend the patent claims. The UPC Central Board has issued a procedural order scheduling an interim hearing to clarify the scope of the dispute, assess its value, and discuss potential settlements.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.
In this procedural matter, Irdeto B.V. sued several DJI entities for patent infringement concerning EP 2 831 787. The defendants requested an extension and harmonization of the time periods for filing their Statement of Defence due to technical complexity. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim partially granted the request, establishing a uniform deadline but rejecting the plea for further delay. This decision underscores the court's focus on procedural efficiency while maintaining strict requirements for demonstrating genuine need for extensions.
Sanofi SA v.Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order addressed a dispute between Sanofi and Zentiva regarding the timeline and scope of written submissions in an infringement action concerning EP patent 2 493 466. Zentiva sought to amend the case management schedule, arguing that the existing deadlines were insufficient or unclear. The UPC Panel dismissed these requests, upholding the judge-rapporteur's procedural order. This decision reinforces the strict application of the Rules of Procedure in managing complex infringement litigation within the UPC.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a case concerning security for costs and the disposal of an action that has become devoid of purpose. The claimant, Ballinno B.V., initially sought provisional measures related to patent EP 1 944 067 but subsequently withdrew these requests on appeal. Consequently, the court disposed of the action while rejecting Ballinno's request to set aside the security for costs. This ruling reinforces procedural principles regarding case abandonment and cost allocation in UPC litigation.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Easee Holding B.V., and managing director
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect related to a security for costs order issued by the CFI in an infringement action. The court found that the initial order contained manifest errors, specifically regarding the legal basis for requiring security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA. By granting suspensive effect to both Easee's appeals, the UPC ensured that the status quo would be maintained pending a full review of the underlying issues.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division granted a three-month stay of proceedings in an infringement action after two defendants were declared bankrupt. The court clarified that while insolvency does not automatically halt UPC proceedings, it allows for a temporary suspension under Rule 311.1 RoP. Crucially, the decision confirmed that the stay must encompass all parties, including non-insolvent natural persons like company directors, based on established case law regarding liability.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
In a significant decision by default, the UPC granted Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. an infringement declaration against Spiridonakis Bros GP regarding its reversible agricultural tool patent (EP 1998604). The court upheld the permanent injunction and established recurring penalties for continued infringement across several member states. This case highlights the strict evidentiary requirements placed on claimants pursuing default judgments in UPC proceedings, while also clarifying the scope of territoriality under Art. 26 UPCA.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited; Sumi Agro Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarified a critical procedural point regarding the timing of court fee payments. The case involved an appeal by Sumi Agro challenging the revocation of provisional measures granted to Syngenta, which hinged on whether Sumi Agro had failed to start infringement proceedings within the stipulated timeframe. The Court ruled that the date fees are ordered to be transferred is decisive for timely payment, not necessarily the date they are received by the Court's bank account. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners navigating UPC procedural deadlines, especially in international contexts where transfer times can vary.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision confirmed a settlement reached between Plant-e and Arkyne regarding the infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 137 782. While the core dispute was settled, the Court issued a significant ruling on procedural matters, specifically granting Arkyne a reimbursement of 60% of its court fees. This case highlights the practical application of UPC rules governing settlements and fee refunds.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG initiated proceedings against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) concerning EP 2 892 442 B1, a patent related to surgical torque-transmitting instruments. The Düsseldorf Local Court issued an order setting the technical scope of Claim 1 for the upcoming oral hearing on July 1, 2025. This procedural step is crucial as it defines the precise features that will be debated regarding potential infringement or validity in this UPC case.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope of security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA. The court ruled that a claimant cannot request security for costs in an infringement action, even if they subsequently file a counterclaim for revocation. The core reasoning is that the purpose of security for costs—protecting a defendant from an insolvent initiating party—does not apply when the defense (revocation counterclaim) is merely a necessary response to the initial claim.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd.
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses jurisdictional objections raised by Motorola entities in a patent infringement case brought by Headwater Research LLC concerning wireless mobile devices. The court dismissed these objections, affirming its jurisdiction under the UPC Agreement. Crucially, the ruling clarifies the scope of Article 33(1)(b) EPCG, limiting its application and confirming that the main infringement proceedings will proceed to trial. This decision provides important guidance on how jurisdictional rules are interpreted in complex multi-defendant cases within the UPC.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision addresses jurisdictional objections in a complex patent infringement case involving Headwater Research LLC against various Motorola entities and logistics providers. The court dismissed the defendants' objections, affirming its jurisdiction under Articles 33(1)(a) and (b) of the UPC Agreement. Crucially, the ruling clarifies the scope of Article 33(1)(b), stating it is an extension of jurisdiction but does not automatically permit unified claims against all parties without specific conditions. The main infringement proceedings will now proceed to a substantive hearing.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This decision addresses a critical procedural dispute regarding the protection of confidential information in UPC proceedings involving potential antitrust conflicts. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing data from disclosure to defendants. The Panel ruled that while such regimes are theoretically possible under EU law principles, the Claimant failed to meet the strict burden of proof required by the UPC for demonstrating a concrete risk of anticompetitive harm. Consequently, the application was dismissed, but leave to appeal was granted, setting up an important precedent for future cases balancing IP protection and competition concerns.
Headwater Research LLC v.Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision by the Munich Local Division addresses jurisdictional objections raised in a complex infringement case involving Motorola and its supply chain partners, including Flextronics. The court dismissed the defendants' challenges regarding jurisdiction, allowing the main proceedings to continue. The ruling provides important clarification on how Art. 33 of the UPC Agreement applies when multiple parties are involved, particularly concerning non-infringing entities like logistics providers.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the scope of confidentiality protection in patent litigation. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' regime for sensitive licensing data, arguing it was necessary to prevent antitrust conflicts. The Panel rejected this request, emphasizing that such exceptional restrictions require a high burden of proof showing concrete risks of anticompetitive harm. Although the application for review was dismissed, leave to appeal was granted, setting up a potential precedent on balancing confidentiality and competition law within the UPC.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision addresses jurisdictional challenges in a complex infringement case involving multiple defendants (Motorola group and Flextronics). The Munich Local Division upheld its jurisdiction, clarifying the scope of Article 33(1)(b) EPGÜ. By dismissing the objections, the court allowed the main infringement proceedings to proceed against all parties, including the logistics provider, Flextronics International Europe B.V., who was accused of contributing to the infringement.