European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 33 of 67 · 1,592 total
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Kodak against a judgment issued by the Court of First Instance in an infringement case brought by Fujifilm. The court ruled that the appeal did not have suspensive effect, rejecting Kodak's request to halt the enforcement of the initial judgment. The ruling emphasized that while appeals can be challenged, the appellant must demonstrate manifest errors in the lower court's decision, which Kodak failed to do.
Promosome LLC v.Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer AB (and associated BioNTech entities)
Promosome LLC initiated an infringement action against Pfizer and its affiliates concerning various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants protected by EP 2 401 365. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts related to certain pre-June 2023 sales, citing the principle of non-retroactivity in international law. The Court acknowledged its subject matter competence but deferred the conclusive decision on the jurisdictional challenge to the main proceedings, allowing the case to proceed.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
In this preliminary ruling concerning an infringement case (UPC_CFI_471/2023), the court addressed a motion by the defendants to introduce arguments and interpretations from a related US patent proceeding. The court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing that differing views on claim scope in foreign proceedings are not admissible for interpreting the European patent claims. This decision reinforces the principle of procedural order within the UPC, requiring parties to present all relevant facts and legal arguments promptly.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for security for costs. The court ruled in favor of Emboline, Inc., requiring AorticLab srl to provide €200,000 in security. This decision highlights that when a party themselves raises concerns about insolvency following an injunction, it satisfies the legal requirement for granting security for costs under the UPC Agreement.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC procedural order addressed a request by Heraeus Electronics to extend its response deadline, citing the vacation of key members of its Confidentiality Club and delays in accessing confidential documents. The court corrected the start date for Heraeus's deadlines based on when access was actually granted (March 18, 2025). However, the court ultimately denied the request for further extensions, stating that personal vacations do not affect procedural timelines.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG
This UPC decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning evidence preservation and inspection related to the patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which covers specialized saw wires used in semiconductor manufacturing. The claimant sought to inspect facilities of Siltronic AG (and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG) to gather evidence regarding the use of patented saw wire types. Despite acknowledging the general principles of evidence preservation, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately rejected the application for an inspection and evidence-gathering order.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars Research S.p.A.
This UPC preliminary order addressed a jurisdictional challenge raised by Alpinestars Research S.p.A. against Dainese S.p.A.'s infringement claim. The Court ruled that, as the defendant was domiciled in an EU Member State participating in the UPCA, the Milan Local Division possessed universal jurisdiction. Crucially, the court affirmed its competence to hear claims concerning patents validated outside the UPC system, specifically in Spain. This decision reinforces the broad territorial reach of the UPC when dealing with defendants within the Union.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH; Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.; Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich relates to an ongoing infringement action involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril entities concerning European patent EP 3669828. The claimant sought an authentic paper copy of a prior decision for enforcement purposes, which was granted by the court. This ruling is significant as it streamlines the administrative process necessary to move from judgment to execution within the UPC framework.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
Ona Patents SL initiated infringement proceedings against Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, which included a counterclaim for revocation. In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division decided to proceed with a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. This decision streamlines the process by ensuring that validity and infringement are assessed under a single, uniform interpretation of the patent by the same judicial panel.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 152 073, the UPC Local Division Munich granted Syngenta Limited's request to amend its claim to include territories outside the core UPC jurisdiction (Poland, Czech Republic, and UK). This decision addresses the legal uncertainty created by recent ECJ rulings regarding infringement in non-UPC states. The court determined that Syngenta was not required to make this amendment earlier due to the evolving legal landscape, allowing the main infringement and revocation proceedings to proceed across these expanded territories.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a costs determination application filed by the defendants following a complex infringement and revocation proceeding. Although the initial lawsuit resulted in the patent being declared invalid in certain territories, the defendants subsequently sought to recover substantial legal costs from the claimant. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected this claim, finding that the application was submitted too late according to the strict one-month deadline set out in the Rules of Procedure.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.Soltech Energy GbR
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed issues of service on defendants. The Court confirmed that despite one defendant failing to collect a registered letter notification for two weeks and subsequently refusing acceptance, the statement of claim was deemed validly served according to Rule 271.6.b RoP. This ruling ensures procedural efficiency by establishing a clear date of service, allowing the infringement case against Soltech Energy GbR to move forward.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In a procedural order concerning security of legal costs, the UPC addressed concerns raised by several defendants regarding the financial stability of the claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants' request for security, setting the required amount at EUR 100,000. This decision underscores the court's power to manage procedural risks and ensure that patent holders can bear the costs associated with litigation.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
In a recent procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate the infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL against Google entities with the counterclaim for revocation. This strategic decision was made at the request and consent of both parties. By combining these two complex issues into one hearing, the court aims to enhance efficiency and ensure that any determination of patent validity is applied uniformly when assessing infringement.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
In this UPC procedural order, Headwater Research LLC sought to separate the infringement case against one respondent (Beklagte zu 5) due to significant delays. The court ultimately denied this request, prioritizing process economy over the claimant's desire for a faster resolution. The ruling emphasized that since all parties are linked in the supply chain and address the same core issues, keeping them together prevents contradictory judgments.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed an issue of service in a solar technology infringement case involving Jinko Solar and LONGi Solar. The court determined that despite a defendant failing to collect a registered letter containing the statement of claim, the attempted service was valid under the Rules of Procedure. This ruling ensures procedural efficiency by establishing a deemed date of service for the defendant, allowing the main infringement action to move forward.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED, Novartis AG, ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope of public access to court documents, specifically written pleadings and evidence. Stadapharm appealed a lower court's denial of access to documents from a withdrawn main infringement proceeding. The Court ultimately granted access, emphasizing that once proceedings are concluded and parties consent or do not object, the general interest in public access prevails. This ruling provides clarity on how confidentiality concerns must be balanced against transparency requirements within the UPC framework.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, the UPC addressed a request by several defendants to extend the confidentiality of their financial data (revenue and sales figures). The court partially granted this request, maintaining secrecy for specific green-shaded numbers in existing submissions. However, it firmly rejected the defendants' attempt to make the protection vague and applicable to all future filings, setting a clear boundary on how trade secret protections can be extended during litigation.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer SA, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer Oy, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer B.V., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Pfizer Service Company S.r.l.
In a case involving GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and various Pfizer entities, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the Claimant to withdraw its patent infringement action against the Defendants. This decision followed the mutual agreement of both parties to terminate the proceedings. Crucially, the court also ruled to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the substantial court fees paid during the litigation. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can lead to swift resolution in UPC actions.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed the continuation of a complex infringement case involving 10x Genomics and Bruker. After significant delays and disputes over the number of auxiliary requests filed by one claimant, the Court ruled that the proceedings should immediately continue. The decision highlighted the importance of balancing proportionality with the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, especially when procedural hurdles are resolved.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order in the EOFLOW v. Insulet UPC case marks a significant step toward trial preparation. The Court closed the written phase and scheduled an Interim Conference to focus on claim construction, particularly regarding the term 'pass through'. Furthermore, the Court strictly enforced rules of evidence by deeming US patent '159 inadmissible, emphasizing the need for parties to consolidate their arguments early in UPC proceedings.
Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of a counterclaim for patent revocation filed by Ericsson against Motorola. Following an initial infringement action, Ericsson sought to withdraw its revocation claim and associated appeal after both parties agreed that there was no legitimate interest in the court proceeding. The Court granted the withdrawal based on the respondent's consent, effectively closing the case.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy, TGI Sport Virtual Limited, Supponor SASU, TGI Sport Italia S.r.l., Supponor España SL (jointly referred to as TGI)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural motions concerning the amendment of claims and the addition of a defendant in an infringement action. The court upheld the Local Division's decision to allow AIM Sport Development AG to amend its claim and add TGI UK as a party, despite objections from the defendants (TGI). The ruling emphasizes the balance between claimant's needs for comprehensive relief and procedural efficiency, confirming that such amendments are permissible if they do not unduly hinder the defense.
Aliud Pharma GmbH v.Novartis AG
In a procedural matter concerning document access, the UPC granted Aliud Pharma GmbH's request to view confidential documents from ACCORD Healthcare and Novartis AG. The Court provided clear guidance on GDPR compliance in digital proceedings, specifically addressing the scope of protection for digital signatures and company email addresses. This decision clarifies how parties must redact personal data when sharing evidence within the UPC framework.