European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 34 of 67 · 1,592 total
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This Düsseldorf Local Division decision addresses complex issues in a patent infringement and revocation case involving vehicle frames made from foam resin. The court provided key guidance on interpreting 'product-by-process' claims, emphasizing that the technical properties of the resulting product are paramount to claim scope. Additionally, the ruling clarifies the jurisdictional approach to compensation claims, noting that while the UPC can handle financial damages, claimants must address varying national requirements for such compensation.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG seeking to correct errors in a prior judgment. The claimant successfully argued for the removal of specific phrasing ('direkt oder indirekt') from several claims due to clerical mistakes made during drafting. However, the request to formally add all participating counsel was denied, setting clear boundaries on what constitutes an 'obvious inaccuracy' under UPC procedural rules.
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.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim addressed a request by multiple defendant groups (TCL, Hisense, and LG) to split their proceedings due to concerns over disclosing sensitive supply chain information. The Court rejected these requests, holding that conflicts arising from shared counsel must be managed internally by the parties through confidentiality agreements. This decision reinforces the principle of unified litigation in UPC cases unless a clear legal basis for separation is established.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most procedural applications, effectively closing related workflows. Crucially, despite dismissing the main cost decision, the Judge issued a specific protective measure, ordering both Edwards Lifesciences and Erik Krahbichler not to disclose Meril's marked confidential data.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural UPC case concerning a patent infringement action involving EP 2 401 365, the Court addressed the request for security for costs. The Defendants successfully convinced the Court to order the Claimant to provide EUR 1.5 million in security, which was equally distributed between two groups of defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer). Crucially, while granting the security requirement, the Court dismissed the premature demand for a decision by default under Rule 355 RoP, maintaining procedural integrity.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a procedural application concerning public access to court documents in the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_135/2024). The claimant sought extensive access to all filed exhibits and pleadings. The Court partially granted this request, allowing access to specific redacted versions of key documents while rejecting broader requests for further redaction or disclosure.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril Life Sciences addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most pending applications but issued a specific protective measure regarding sensitive legal billing details. This decision highlights the practical application of confidentiality rules (Rule 262A RoP) in complex litigation, particularly concerning attorney-client privilege and fee structures.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural matter concerning a patent infringement action involving EP 2 401 365, the UPC Court addressed the request for security for costs. The Claimant, Promosome LLC, was ordered to deposit EUR 1.5 million to cover potential legal expenses of the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer group). Crucially, while the court granted the security requirement based on party agreement, it firmly rejected the premature demand by the Defendants for a default judgment under Rule 355 RoP, maintaining procedural integrity.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.
This UPC decision addresses a critical jurisdictional challenge raised by Alpinestars S.p.A. against Dainese S.p.A.'s infringement claim. The Milan Local Division affirmed its universal jurisdiction, confirming that as the court of domicile for the defendant, the UPC can adjudicate on infringements related to European patents validated outside the UPCA territory (specifically Spain). This ruling solidifies the expansive territorial reach of the UPC in relation to defendants domiciled within participating Member States.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.; Alpinestars Research S.p.A.; Motocard Bike S.l.
Dainese S.p.A. sought leave to limit its infringement claims from two patents (EP4072364 and EP3498117) after an adverse EPO decision restricted the scope of one patent. The UPC Milan Local Division granted this request unconditionally, confirming that a limitation of claim is a valid form of case amendment under Rule 263(3) RoP. This ruling clarifies that when a claimant limits its claims rather than withdrawing the entire action, the proceedings continue against the defendant regarding the remaining patents, and cost allocation is deferred until the final judgment.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application by Dainese S.p.A. to limit its claims in an infringement action, specifically dropping one patent (EP'117) while maintaining another (EP'364). The court ruled that since the limitation was unconditional and only involved reducing the scope of the claim rather than withdrawing the entire case, Rule 263(3) RoP applied. This confirms that patentees can unilaterally limit their claims without penalty under this rule, ensuring procedural flexibility while deferring cost allocation until the main proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences sued Meril entities for infringing its prosthetic heart valve patent (EP 3 669 828 B2). The UPC Local Division Munich issued a comprehensive decision, granting provisional damages of EUR 663,000 and ordering the defendants to cease infringement. Beyond the merits, the court provided important procedural guidance on suing multiple related entities under UPCA rules and applying EPO's problem-solution approach in litigation.
Asustek Computer Inc. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This UPC decision addressed a cost application following the dismissal of an infringement preliminary injunction filed by Ericsson against AsusTek, Arvato, and Digital River. The Court ruled that while general legal costs should be assessed as part of the main action to uphold proportionality and prevent double recovery, travel expenses specific to the PI proceedings could be awarded if properly substantiated. This decision provides clarity on how cost assessments interact between preliminary measures and subsequent merits actions under the UPC framework.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH; Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
In a significant preliminary objection ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim rejected arguments raised by Samsung Electronics challenging its jurisdiction and the validity of the patent assignment. The court held that complex issues concerning ownership and temporal scope must be addressed during the main infringement proceedings, not at the preliminary stage. This decision allows the infringement action to proceed, paving the way for a full examination of the merits and the contested legal arguments regarding the opt-out withdrawal.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC; DIGITAL RIVER IRELAND LTD.
Ericsson initiated an infringement action against AsusTek and Digital River concerning EP 2 819 131 B1. Due to Digital River's insolvency, Ericsson sought leave to withdraw the claim against that defendant. The UPC Court granted this partial withdrawal, allowing the main case to proceed solely against AsusTek. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility of the UPC in managing cases involving insolvent parties while maintaining fairness.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al. (Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich rejected a request by major pharmaceutical companies (BioNTech and Pfizer group) to compel their opponent, Promosome LLC, to disclose detailed raw data from expert reports. The Defendants argued that they needed access to this data to properly defend against infringement claims related to mRNA technology for SARS-CoV-2. The Court ruled that the request lacked specificity regarding contested facts and reiterated that parties are generally free to determine their own supporting evidence.
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.
In a key procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected preliminary objections raised by major electronics manufacturers (Hisense, TCL, LG) against Corning Incorporated. The court affirmed its jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, holding that local infringing acts in Germany are sufficient to establish competence, even without proving a direct commercial relationship between the claimant and all defendants. This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings to proceed.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter: the withdrawal of an application for leave to appeal. EOFlow Co., Ltd. sought to withdraw its appeal against a cost decision issued by the Court of First Instance, and Insulet Corporation agreed to this withdrawal. The Court granted the request, confirming that parties can withdraw their actions under Rule 265 RoP when no final judgment has been rendered in the main case.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al.
In this UPC case, Promosome LLC sought to compel BioNTech and its affiliates to produce detailed raw data and experimental methods used in an expert report related to patent infringement. The Defendants argued that access to this data was necessary for them to properly defend against the infringement claims. However, the Court rejected the request, emphasizing that the defendants failed to specify concrete facts or evidence they wished to contest. This decision reinforces the high threshold required for a Rule 190 request, even when made by a defendant.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Fujifilm successfully sued Kodak entities for infringing a patent related to lithographic printing plates in the UPC Local Division Mannheim. The court found infringement, leading to significant remedies including mandatory destruction and recall of the contested products. While Fujifilm's counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, the defendants were ordered to pay an interim award for legal costs, marking a decisive victory for the claimant.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural application concerning an infringement action, the UPC Central Division addressed Microsoft Corporation's request for a decision by default against it. Although Microsoft failed to provide security for costs as required, the Court exercised its discretion and rejected the application. The ruling emphasizes that while rules allow for default judgments, the court must ensure sufficient evidentiary certainty exists before proceeding, thereby prioritizing substantive fairness over strict procedural adherence.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim separated the infringement proceedings related to the UK national part of EP 3 511 174. This decision was necessitated by an outstanding ECJ ruling concerning international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation. The court aimed to prevent undue delay in enforcement while ensuring all parties had a fair opportunity to comment on the pending European law question.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 476 616, the UPC Local Division Mannheim separated the infringement proceedings related to the UK national part. This decision was driven by the pending ECJ ruling (C-339/22) on international jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation. The court aimed to balance the need for timely enforcement of patent rights against the necessity of properly addressing a fundamental question of European law, ensuring both parties have an opportunity to comment on the ECJ's decision.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Hamburg Local Division addressed a request by multiple defendants to compel the Chinese claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., to provide security for costs. The Court rejected the motion, emphasizing that nationality or domicile alone cannot justify such an order. The ruling reinforces the principle that parties must present concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties rather than relying on general assumptions about foreign judgment recognition.