European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 28 of 67 · 1,592 total
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a penalty payment case stemming from an initial disclosure order in an infringement action involving Philips and Belkin regarding patent EP 2 867 997. The court confirmed the validity of imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance, even if compliance is eventually achieved late. Crucially, it reinforced the obligation to disclose manufacturer prices under Art. 67 EPC, providing clear guidance on procedural enforcement and disclosure requirements in UPC litigation.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted Visibly Inc.'s request for security for costs against Easee B.V. The court found that despite arguments regarding the UPCA's scope and the defendants' status as a start-up, the claimant was entitled to protect itself from non-recovery of legal fees due to the defendants' precarious financial situation. This decision reinforces the procedural right of parties in UPC proceedings to seek security for costs when there is a genuine risk that judgment costs cannot be recovered.
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.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH initiated a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning the pressure pack dispenser patent (EP 3 655 346 B1). The claimant argued for invalidity based on lack of industrial application and novelty. However, the UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action, maintaining the patent as amended by the defendant's auxiliary requests. This decision underscores the procedural complexities within the UPC, particularly concerning claim amendments and the interpretation of patentability requirements.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH initiated a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning European Patent EP 3 655 346 B1, which covers a specialized pressure pack dispenser. Lindal argued the patent lacked industrial application and novelty. The UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action, maintaining the patent as amended by the defendant's auxiliary request. This decision underscores the procedural complexities of UPC litigation, particularly regarding the interplay between invalidity arguments and amendments.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
In this UPC case, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. initiated proceedings against Advanced Bionics entities regarding patent EP 4 074 373 B1. However, the parties mutually agreed to withdraw the claim. The court formally granted the withdrawal and terminated the case. This decision highlights how mutual settlements can lead to a swift conclusion of complex UPC litigation.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had initially sought revocation of EP 2 794 928 against Harvard, which was subsequently revoked by the CFI. When Harvard appealed and later withdrew the appeal, the dispute shifted to fee reimbursement under UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP). The Court ruled that because the withdrawal occurred after the written procedure closed but before the interim procedure ended, Harvard qualified for a 40% refund rather than the maximum 60%.
INSULET CORPORATION v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex dispute between medical device manufacturers EOFLOW and INSULET concerning the insulin pump patent EP4201327. The case involved parallel revocation and infringement actions, alongside preliminary injunction proceedings. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding default judgments and cost caps in multi-party litigation. Practitioners should note the emphasis on literal claim interpretation and the necessity of a unitary approach when dealing with related infringers.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a challenge by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH against an earlier order issued to preserve evidence and conduct inspections regarding patent EP 3 083 107. The court confirmed its initial ruling, finding that Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG had presented sufficient grounds for the preventive measures. Crucially, the court emphasized that the respondent's deliberate lack of cooperation in providing specific technical details justified the order, even if a direct risk of evidence destruction was not explicitly proven.
CENTRIPETAL LIMITED v.PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the delicate balance required when granting orders for preserving evidence and inspecting premises. The court clarified that while the standard of proof is lower in these summary proceedings than in a full infringement action, applicants must demonstrate plausibility rather than mere speculation to prevent 'fishing expeditions.' Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes that any such measures must be necessary for effective patent enforcement while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
Samsung initiated an infringement action against ZTE regarding standard-essential patents related to 5G mobile devices. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim issued an order setting the preliminary value of the dispute at €4 million. This decision significantly raises the financial stakes for both parties, reflecting the broad commercial impact of the alleged infringement across key market segments.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In this appeal case, NanoString Technologies sought to withdraw its revocation action against Harvard University concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, noting that Harvard had not demonstrated a legitimate interest in continuing the proceedings after being given an opportunity to respond. This decision effectively closed the legal dispute and resulted in the release of NanoString's security deposit.
Aylo Premium Ltd. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
In a significant decision concerning streaming technology, the UPC Central Division revoked the German national part of EP 3 822 805 B1. The dispute centered on the validity of an apparatus for adaptive-rate content streaming. While the revocation was limited to Germany, the ruling underscores the Court's ability to tailor the scope of patent invalidity across different UPC member states. This case is a key example of how national validation status impacts unitary proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
In this UPC case, Dolby International AB sued Epson France SAS (among others) for alleged infringement of EP 3 605 534B1. The defense raised a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the claimant's withdrawal from the Opt-out regime was invalid. The Local Division of Hamburg dismissed this opposition, finding that the procedural requirements had been met and allowing the case to proceed. This decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for managing opt-outs within the UPC framework.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a request by Grundfos Holding A/S to correct an earlier ruling against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf accepted the correction, significantly altering the scope of obligations placed on the respondent. Key changes include mandating product recalls for infringing goods and confirming that the respondent must compensate the claimant for all resulting damages. This case highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC to ensure judicial accuracy.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This UPC procedural order in the case of BAUSSMANN v. Raimund Beck Nageltechnik concerns a revocation action against EP 4 019 790. The court has set strict deadlines for both parties to submit their respective pleadings regarding the patent's validity and potential amendments. While no substantive decision was made, this order highlights the procedural rigor of UPC proceedings when dealing with complex issues like amending patents during litigation.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision concerns an application by Chainzone Technology to suspend the effect of a judgment against it, which had found it liable for patent infringement. The appeal was filed following a local court ruling that largely favored Swarco, the patent holder. The Board ultimately rejected Chainzone's request for suspension, citing insufficient substantiation in its legal arguments regarding the interpretation of the patent claim.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna, Inc.
In a procedural order concerning two infringement actions, the UPC Local Division dismissed most preliminary objections raised by Moderna against Genevant Sciences. Moderna had challenged the court's jurisdiction and competence for various defendants and patents. The Court ruled that the patent was validly opted-out and withdrawn, thereby confirming the UPC's authority to hear the case. While some issues regarding long-arm jurisdiction remain pending in the main proceedings, the path is cleared for the infringement claims to move forward.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, Warmcook
In this UPC decision, the Paris Local Division addressed complex issues regarding patent amendments and infringement claims. Although the court allowed Hurom Co., Ltd to unconditionally amend its patent (EP3155936), it ultimately found that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient factual evidence of infringement in Poland. Consequently, all infringement claims were dismissed, setting a high bar for claimants seeking remedies outside the core UPC territory.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Biotech UK Limited (and all Moderna group entities)
This UPC Procedural Order addressed preliminary objections raised by the Moderna group against Arbutus Biopharma Corporation's infringement claims concerning two biotech patents (EP2279254 and EP4241767). Moderna challenged the Court's jurisdiction, particularly regarding long-arm jurisdiction for various international subsidiaries. The Hague Local Division largely rejected these objections, confirming its competence to hear the case. This ruling is significant as it clears a major procedural hurdle, allowing the substantive infringement claims to move forward.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter where NJOY Netherlands B.V. sought to withdraw an appeal against Juul Labs International Inc. The underlying action was a revocation suit brought before the CFI, which had previously dismissed it. Given that both parties consented to the withdrawal, the CoA permitted the closure of the proceedings. This case highlights the importance of party consent in procedural matters under the UPC Rules of Procedure.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 767 151, the UPC granted a stay of proceedings at the joint request of Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. and Häfele SE & Co. KG. This decision allows both parties to concentrate on ongoing settlement negotiations without the immediate pressure of an oral hearing. The ruling highlights the Court's flexibility in managing litigation when parties seek amicable resolution.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addressed a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to allow further written pleadings in an infringement action against Texas Instruments. The Claimant argued that new and complex technical points raised by the Defendants required additional time for submission. However, the UPC Panel dismissed this review application, emphasizing strict formal requirements for procedural requests under R. 36 RoP. This decision reinforces the court's adherence to established case law regarding the necessary level of substantiation in managing litigation timelines.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses an application for interim relief concerning patent infringement. The court ruled that the requirement for a security deposit to ensure enforcement is not automatic and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the lower court. The ruling emphasizes that parties should raise all relevant facts, including financial vulnerabilities, during the initial proceedings rather than relying solely on them in an appeal.