European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 27 of 67 · 1,592 total
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
In a significant decision, the Munich Local Court dismissed Tiroler Rohre GmbH's infringement claim against SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH regarding driving tips (ram spikes). The court accepted the defendants' technical arguments, specifically that the alleged 'ledge' was not free-standing and that the contact surface was not flat as required by the patent claims. This ruling underscores the importance of precise claim construction in UPC litigation, particularly when dealing with functional or structural limitations.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding legal fees incurred during preliminary injunction proceedings. Insulet sought to protect its attorney's fees under privilege, but the UPC emphasized the balance between protecting confidential information and ensuring the respondent's right to be heard. The Court ultimately rejected the attempt to limit access solely to law firms, affirming that at least one natural person from each party must have access for a fair trial.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG to withdraw its infringement claim against Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH. This withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties as part of an out-of-court settlement. Although the merits were not decided, the court issued a detailed cost allocation, refunding fees to both sides based on the timing of the withdrawals.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding legal fees incurred by Insulet Corporation during litigation. The UPC Court balanced the need to protect sensitive commercial information against the fundamental right of EOFLOW Co., Ltd. to a fair trial. While acknowledging the sensitivity of attorney's fees, the court upheld the requirement that at least one natural person from each party must have access to confidential materials, thereby limiting Insulet's ability to restrict disclosure solely to its legal representatives.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes Care appealed a decision from the Central Division Paris regarding the revocation of EP 2 196 231, which covered an ambulatory drug infusion system. Before the Court of Appeal could rule on the appeal, both parties reached a settlement agreement. The UPC Court of Appeal subsequently confirmed this settlement, formally terminating all proceedings related to the patent.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 602 692, the claimant (Phoenix Contact) voluntarily withdrew its infringement suit against the respondents. The court subsequently allowed the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation as well. This decision highlights that voluntary withdrawals can lead to the termination of proceedings and trigger specific rules regarding the refund of court fees, providing a clear procedural path for parties seeking an amicable resolution.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case concerning EP 2 839 403 addressed a dispute over whether the Claimant's introduction of new technical details and product examples constituted an impermissible amendment to the infringement action. The Court determined that providing further illustrative examples of existing functionalities, even on newly released models, does not change the nature or scope of the original dispute. Consequently, while the request to exclude these submissions was postponed for a full panel review, all other procedural requests by the Defendants were dismissed.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request by the Applicant, 10x Genomics, to expand access rights within the confidentiality club for its legal representatives' firm. The Applicant sought to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings due to staffing issues. The Court partially granted this request, allowing the replacement of two specific members but firmly rejecting the broader proposal to grant blanket access to all paralegals.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna, Inc.
This procedural order addressed requests from Moderna to rectify previous court orders concerning the deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections (PO). The UPC Court of First Instance found that the dates of service mentioned in the original PO Order contained clerical errors. By correcting these dates, the court confirmed that all defendants, including various international Moderna entities, had filed their preliminary objections timely and were therefore admissible to defend themselves in the main infringement proceedings.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the mandatory procedural requirements for imposing periodic penalty payments under R. 354.4 RoP. The court ruled that such an intrusive measure must be decided by a panel, not a single judge. Consequently, the appeal was successful, leading to the setting aside of the initial order and referral back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sought a warning from the UPC Local Division Mannheim, requesting that Kodak GmbH and its affiliates pay up to EUR 30,000 per day if they failed to comply with information requests set out in a previous judgment. The court rejected this application, emphasizing that since the original decision retained flexibility regarding timelines and penalties, any enforcement or penalty determination must occur through subsequent applications. This ruling reinforces the procedural approach of the UPC concerning non-compliance warnings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed rectification requests filed by Meril (the defendants) concerning a prior infringement and revocation action involving Edwards Lifesciences' prosthetic heart valve patent. The court agreed to correct several statements in the original decision, including clarifying claim scope and correcting clerical errors regarding opposition dates and disclosure orders. This ruling underscores the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting obvious mistakes in judicial decisions.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
In this UPC procedural order, the court allowed Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. to join the ongoing infringement action as an assisting party (Streithilfe). This move is significant as it allows a third party to participate in supporting or challenging the claims between Swarco Futurit and Yunex GmbH. The decision primarily addresses procedural matters, including requests for cost security deposits, keeping the core patent dispute active but with expanded participation.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.
In this case management order, the UPC Milan Local Division addressed a joint request for a stay of proceedings involving two patents. The Court ruled that when all parties agree to a stay under Rule 295(d), the court is obligated to grant it, emphasizing party autonomy (Art 43 UPCA). Crucially, the decision allowed for a partial stay, halting proceedings related to EP '117 while permitting the infringement and revocation actions concerning EP '364 to proceed normally. This highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation involving multiple patents.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning costs determination in UPC case UPC_CFI_58/2024, Lionra Technologies Ltd. successfully petitioned for restoration of its previous status after missing a deadline under Rule 151 VerfO. The court accepted the argument that the oversight was an organizational error within the claimant's legal team, which fell outside the party's control. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural deadlines, especially those related to costs procedures, can be restored if the failure is attributable to circumstances beyond the party's reasonable influence.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd.
Versah LLC initiated an infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 402 420 B1. However, before the written proceedings concluded, Versah reached an out-of-court settlement with one of the defendants (Respondent 2). The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the claimant's request for partial withdrawal against this specific defendant and terminated those proceedings. This case highlights how private settlements can directly impact the trajectory and scope of UPC litigation.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This interim order in the UPC case between Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz focuses heavily on procedural consolidation. The court mandated that the claimant, Heraeus, submit a consolidated version of its formal claims by June 11, 2025. This move aims to streamline the proceedings, especially concerning how infringement claims relate to counterclaims for revocation across different jurisdictions. The parties are also urged to resume settlement discussions and establish a cost comparison.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S, Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This procedural order in the BioMarin v Ascendis Pharma case sets critical dates for the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP patent 3 175 863. The court scheduled an interim conference for January 9, 2026, and a full oral hearing for March 18, 2026. Furthermore, the panel agreed to allocate a technically qualified judge in biotechnology, signaling the move toward substantive examination of the complex biotech patent.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC confirmed a settlement agreement reached between F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. The court upheld the request for confidentiality regarding the terms of this settlement. While the case against these two parties is concluded via settlement, litigation continues against other defendants involved in the infringement proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by NUC Electronics and WARMCOOK to impose strict confidentiality measures on information they submitted to the court. The defendants sought protection because they had appealed the underlying decision ordering them to disclose the data. However, the Court ultimately dismissed their request, holding that the existing limitations on how the claimant can use the information are adequate protection under trade secret law. This ruling clarifies the scope of R. 262A RoP when information is provided as part of a merits judgment.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses complex jurisdictional questions regarding the temporal scope of the UPCA Agreement, specifically concerning acts occurring before its entry into force or during a patent's opt-out period. The court affirmed that the UPC possesses competence over these historical infringement acts, provided the action is lodged while the patent is under exclusive jurisdiction. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners navigating transitional periods and opting out of the UPC system.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendants (NUC Electronics and WARMCOOK) to impose strict confidentiality measures on information they were required to provide to the claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.). The defendants sought protection pending an appeal against the underlying decision. However, the UPC Local Division Mannheim dismissed this request entirely. The court held that since the information was already subject to inherent usage restrictions tied to the infringement action, and because the defendant must provide the data directly to the claimant, a separate confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP was unnecessary.
Genentech Inc. v.F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG, Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division granted an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection in the dispute concerning EP 3 401 335 B1. The case involves Genentech/Roche against Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech regarding biosimilars of the cancer drug Perjeta®. This decision allows the Applicants to secure critical information necessary for their claims, highlighting the UPC's proactive role in managing complex pharmaceutical litigation.
Genentech Inc. v.F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG, Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
In this significant pharmaceutical dispute, Genentech and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG sought urgent procedural measures against Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc. The UPC Local Division granted both an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection concerning the patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers the cancer medicine Perjeta®. This decision is a critical step in securing necessary data for the ongoing litigation regarding biosimilar launch (HLX11).