European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 29 of 67 · 1,592 total
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a request for security for costs filed by Siemens Healthineers against Hologic in an infringement and revocation action. Siemens argued that enforcing potential cost orders would be unduly burdensome due to Hologic's US domicile, citing lack of international judgment recognition treaties. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the burden lies on the applicant to prove undue burden with specific evidence regarding foreign law application. This ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required for security for costs applications in UPC proceedings.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
In a significant revocation action, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH successfully challenged and obtained the revocation of European patent EP 1 944 067 B1 against Ballinno B.V. The court confirmed the patent's invalidity for Germany and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the decision provided important guidance on claim interpretation, emphasizing that general terms in a patent claim cannot be restricted by specific examples or embodiments found within the patent description.
Jingao Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect and expedition filed by Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. against Jingao Solar Co., Ltd. The appeal concerned a security for costs order issued by the Court of First Instance in the main infringement/revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 787 541. The Court ultimately rejected Chint's request, upholding the original timeline and requiring Chint to provide the stipulated security.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS
In a case involving Roche and Tandem Diabetes Care against Rubin Medical, the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued an important procedural order concerning trade secret protection. The court successfully granted the request to classify specific documents as confidential under Article 58 EPC. This ruling sets strict boundaries on who can access sensitive information during the ongoing infringement proceedings, emphasizing the importance of confidentiality protocols in high-stakes biotech litigation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku, Inc.
In this UPC decision, Sun Patent Trust sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) against Roku, Inc., aiming to prevent Roku from pursuing related anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunctions in US courts. The court ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate a genuine risk of irreparable harm; here, the court found that the requested AASI was likely futile and risked prejudicing the claimant's rights without proper preliminary steps.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim harmonized the deadlines for two related defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. The court agreed with the parties' request to set a uniform deadline of July 2, 2025, for submitting Statements of Defence. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the Court's willingness to manage procedural complexities in multi-defendant cases involving corporate groups, prioritizing efficiency over strict adherence to initial service dates.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
Dolby International AB sought provisional measures at the UPC to prevent Roku, Inc. from pursuing Anti-Suit or Anti-Enforcement Injunctions in US courts related to the HEVC standard patent EP 3 490 258. The court ultimately denied Dolby's request for these protective measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate sufficient urgency and risk; otherwise, they may be liable for costs.
3V SIGMA S.P.A. v.AZIENDA CHIMICA E FARMACEUTICA S.P.A. - A.C.E.F. S.P.A. and AZIENDA CHIMICA E FARMACEUTICA S.R.L. - A.C.E.F. S.R.L.
In a significant procedural ruling, 3V Sigma successfully obtained an ex parte preservation of evidence order against ACEF. The case centers on two patents covering triazine compounds and cosmetic compositions used as UV filters. By securing access to samples and technical documentation related to the competitor's product MFSorb 513, 3V Sigma can build a strong evidentiary foundation for future infringement claims. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for pre-trial evidence gathering.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
In a preliminary procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted a strict confidentiality order protecting financial information submitted by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. The court found that the Defendant failed to prove the public availability of this sensitive data, justifying the protection under UPCA rules. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to safeguarding proprietary business information during litigation.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA
This procedural order in the Belparts v. IMI Hydronic case confirms the court's decision to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation simultaneously, despite potential conflicts between arguments presented in different proceedings. The UPC Local Division Munich set specific dates for future hearings, including an interim videoconference and a full oral hearing scheduled for June 2026. This order highlights the procedural flexibility of the UPC while managing complex litigation strategies involving multiple claims.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed the logistical challenges of inspecting large agricultural machinery central to an infringement claim. The Court ruled that Article 53(f) UPCA provides a broad scope for evidence gathering, allowing dynamic experiments on-site rather than strictly limited inspections in the courtroom. This ruling is significant as it facilitates complex technical evaluations involving bulky industrial equipment.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order addresses a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to amend its infringement action to include the AM67x product as an attacked embodiment. The court recognized the complexity of balancing the claimant's need to address new market activity against the defendants' right to prepare their defense. Instead of making a final ruling immediately, the judge postponed the decision until the oral hearing while granting the defendants time to respond in substance to the proposed amendment.
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.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning the separation of infringement proceedings based on concerns over confidential supply chain information. The defendants (Hisense, TCL, LG) argued that sharing sensitive data among competing entities would violate EU competition law and impair their right to be heard. However, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that procedural economy outweighs the need for separation. It clarified that confidentiality can be protected through existing rules of procedure (R. 262A RoP) and internal party arrangements.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order concerning a patent infringement action, the Claimant sought leave to amend its case to include new submissions regarding 'Threat Simulator' and 'ThreatARMOR.' The Defendants opposed this request. The Local Division Mannheim postponed the final decision on whether to grant this leave until the oral hearing. This ruling highlights the Court's cautious approach when assessing amendments that introduce potentially distinct attacked embodiments, requiring a full understanding of the patent scope before making a determination.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division Mannheim addressed the claimant's request for additional written submissions regarding AVS Class 0. The Court found that while repeated requests are usually inadmissible, it exceptionally allowed limited supplementation on this specific technical point to ensure all arguments were considered before the oral hearing. This decision highlights the court's balance between procedural efficiency and ensuring a fair presentation of complex technical issues.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a case concerning the infringement of EP 4 142 215, Huawei Technologies sought protective measures for its confidential business secrets against MediaTek. The UPC Local Division Munich ruled favorably, classifying specific documents as confidential and imposing strict duties of secrecy on all participants in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the robust protection available under the UPC framework for trade secrets during litigation, ensuring that sensitive information is not disclosed to third parties or the public.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd's request to classify specific documents and information shared during infringement proceedings against MediaTek Germany GmbH as confidential trade secrets. The court affirmed that parties can successfully invoke Art. 58 EPC and Rule 262A VerfO to protect sensitive business information from public disclosure. This decision reinforces the robust protection of trade secrets within UPC litigation, mandating confidentiality not only for public access but also for all participants involved in the case.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision addresses a cost determination procedure following an infringement lawsuit and counterclaim for revocation involving EP 3 375 337 B1. The court found in favor of the claimant, Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, upholding the costs awarded despite the defendant's arguments that the fees were excessive given the limited scope of the alleged infringement. The ruling reinforces the standard requiring a substantive defense against cost objections.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement and revocation dispute concerning the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab (Repatha®). While the case involved detailed arguments regarding second medical use claims, the court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The ruling served to clarify procedural aspects of patent litigation within the UPC, particularly emphasizing that pleading ignorance is not recognized under the Rules of Procedure.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This decision addresses an application for rectification filed by Kodak against a previous ruling concerning patent infringement and revocation. The defendants sought to clarify the value in dispute, arguing it should be set separately for the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. However, the UPC Local Division dismissed this request, confirming that the original panel intended the EUR 15 million figure to cover both actions collectively. This case reinforces the strict interpretation of Rule 353 RoP regarding what constitutes an 'obvious slip' or deviation from the court's actual intention.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical procedural issue of an action becoming 'devoid of purpose' when a claimant withdraws its urgent requests for provisional measures. The case involved Ballinno B.V., patent holder, and UEFA/Kinexon companies regarding offside detection technology. The court clarified that claimants who take the inherent risk of basing their strategy on temporary events must accept the consequence of bearing costs if the interest expires before a final ruling.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC costs decision addressed the reimbursement of litigation expenses following a successful infringement action. The Tribunal upheld the cost-sharing ratio established in the merits judgment (80% borne by the defendant). However, applying proportionality principles, the court significantly reduced the recoverable legal fees requested by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG, ultimately awarding a total of €77,064.65 to the claimant.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over security for costs in an infringement action involving solar technology patents. The Defendants sought to compel the Claimant, based in China, to provide adequate financial security due to perceived difficulties in enforcing UPC judgments in China. However, the Panel rejected this request, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the requesting party. While the initial application was dismissed, the Court granted leave to appeal for the Defendants regarding the scope and requirements of security requests.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed the varying service dates of three related ZTE entities. The court ruled that to ensure procedural fairness and efficiency, all parties agreed to harmonize the deadlines for submitting defenses and revocation counterclaims. This decision establishes a uniform timeline across the group defendants, streamlining the ongoing litigation.