European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 35 of 67 · 1,592 total
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S; Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich rejected the preliminary objection raised by Ascendis Pharma against BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.'s infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 175 863. The Court ruled that BioMarin had adequately established jurisdiction and competence by demonstrating alleged infringing acts within Germany. Consequently, the proceedings will continue to the main substantive phase, where the legal characterization of the disputed acts will be examined.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm successfully sued Kodak entities for infringing EP 3 511 174 B1, a patent covering lithographic printing plate technology. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim found infringement, leading to significant remedies including the mandatory destruction and recall of the contested products (SONORA XTRA-3). Although the defendants' counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, the case highlights the court's willingness to grant strong injunctive relief against infringing parties.
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 rejected the defendants' multiple applications to stay infringement proceedings related to EP 3 296 274. The defendants, representing major electronics groups (Hisense, TCL, LG), argued that joining cases was necessary for a fair trial and due to difficulties in serving parties in China/Hong Kong. The Court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing the lack of an obligation to sue all suppliers jointly. Furthermore, the court issued a procedural order mandating that all parties consolidate their filings into a single workflow to prevent unnecessary delays and administrative burden.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Fujifilm sued Kodak entities for infringing EP 3 476 616, a patent covering lithographic printing plate technology. However, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim delivered a decisive ruling, entirely revoking the patent within Germany. Consequently, the infringement action was dismissed. This case highlights the critical importance of patent validity challenges and the strict procedural requirements for limited defenses under the UPCA.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed requests for extensions and case management adjustments in a patent infringement action involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics. The court granted the requested extension, allowing Samsung more time to respond to key applications concerning claim amendments and case review. This decision highlights the Court's role in managing complex litigation timelines while also issuing guidance on efficient procedural practice.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH v.SOTRAS - S.R.L.
In this UPC case concerning EP 2 762 219, MANN+HUMMEL GmbH sought interim measures against SOTRAS - S.R.L. However, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to a request for withdrawal of the application. The Local Division allowed the withdrawal, confirming that no legitimate interest was shown by the respondent in having the case decided. Although the main action was dropped, MANN+HUMMEL successfully secured a refund of 60% of its court fees.
Amycel LLC v.E
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application for re-establishment of rights (R.320). The Defendant sought to reinstate the deadline to file its Statement of Defence due to illness. However, the Court rejected this request, finding that the representative failed to exercise all due care in managing the filing process. This rejection means the infringement action will proceed to a decision by default against the Defendant.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In this procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division, TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC sought permission to file a further written submission, arguing that Defendants had raised complex and new technical points. The Court denied the request, emphasizing that parties must provide detailed substantiation when requesting deviations from the standard written procedure framework (R. 12 RoP). This decision reinforces the need for precision in procedural filings within the UPC.
Amycel LLC v.-
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application for re-establishment of rights (R.320) filed by the Defendant after missing the deadline to file a Statement of Defence in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, finding that the representative failed to demonstrate 'all due care' despite his illness. This ruling underscores the strict adherence required to procedural deadlines within the UPC framework.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This case involved an appeal by NJOY Netherlands B.V. challenging a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding the revocation of EP 2 875 740. The core issue was not the patent's validity, but procedural compliance. NJOY failed to pay the court fees for the appeal and subsequently waived its right to be heard on this point. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the entire appeal by default under Rule 229.4 RoP.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.
This UPC decision addresses procedural applications concerning rectification and cost allocation following a decision by default. The court established strict criteria for rectifying judicial orders, emphasizing that such corrections must be limited to clear clerical errors or obvious slips, not substantive omissions like the failure to address costs. Furthermore, the panel ruled that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy and does not require its own merits-based cost determination. The costs incurred in this phase must instead be assessed within the main proceedings.
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.
This UPC decision addressed a critical procedural issue regarding the synchronization of proceedings between the Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Office. The claimant successfully sought permission to amend its infringement claims, incorporating changes made during EPO opposition proceedings and introducing a newly discovered infringing product. The court emphasized that true synchronization requires the ability to translate EPO amendments into actionable claim versions within the UPC action, setting important procedural boundaries for patent litigation practitioners.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC appeal case involved ILME GmbH seeking to suspend the main infringement and revocation proceedings before the Local Division Munich while its preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court was being heard on appeal. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing the need for procedural efficiency and timely resolution. This decision reinforces the principle that jurisdictional challenges should be addressed within the UPC framework without unduly delaying substantive litigation.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
In this UPC decision, the Board of Appeal allowed Scandit AG to withdraw its application for an interim injunction against Hand Held Products, Inc., concerning patent EP 3 866 051. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties and permitted under Rule 265.1 VerfO. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to terminate proceedings amicably before a final judgment is reached.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a procedural motion regarding deadlines in an appeal case involving ILME and Phoenix Contact, concerning patent EP 3 646 825. The court was asked to grant a three-week extension for one party's reply brief. Ultimately, the court granted only a minimal three-day extension, emphasizing the need for efficient proceedings while maintaining procedural balance.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Cloudflare Inc.
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a procedural motion regarding information disclosure (Rule 191(2) EPC). The claimants sought to have the court determine if certain requested information was non-essential before proceeding with the disclosure request. The UPC ruled that while this preliminary determination is inadmissible, the disclosure request itself can be made conditionally, pending the outcome of the main infringement case. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility in balancing discovery needs against third-party rights.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This decision addressed an application for access to court files (Rule 262) within a complex UPC infringement case. The Court acknowledged the general public interest in observing proceedings but prioritized protecting sensitive information and mitigating technical risks associated with the CMS workflow system. Consequently, it granted limited access to redacted versions of documents, setting a precedent for balancing transparency against confidentiality in high-stakes UPC litigation.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an urgent inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. ahead of a main infringement lawsuit concerning its patent on surface treatment processes. The claimant argued that the respondent's specialized sales channels made it nearly impossible to obtain products for testing, thus preventing verification of alleged infringements. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing procedural requirements and setting strict deadlines for filing the main action.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.ehemalige Patentinhaber
This UPC appellate decision addresses a complex issue regarding cost allocation in patent litigation where one party initiates an invalidity action and the other subsequently waives their rights to the patent. The court ruled that equitable considerations can override strict procedural requirements concerning the timing of a waiver and revocation request under Art. 105a EPC. This provides significant relief for patentees who may have delayed formalizing their withdrawal due to complex legal circumstances.
Nichia Corporation v.Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH
This UPC decision confirms the settlement reached between Nichia Corporation and Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH regarding infringement of EP 2 323 178 B1. Although the case was settled, the court provided specific procedural rulings, including setting the value of the infringement claim at EUR 1 million. The ruling also mandated a partial refund of court fees for the claimant, highlighting the procedural benefits available when disputes are resolved amicably.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This UPC decision addressed a challenge by VALINEA ENERGIE against an ex-parte evidence preservation order granted to TIRU regarding the patent EP3178578. VALINEA argued that TIRU breached its duty of loyalty and that the request was untimely, suggesting prior knowledge of the patented technology. The Court rejected these arguments, affirming that TIRU's urgency justified the initial ex-parte measure. Furthermore, the court denied VALINEA's attempt to increase the required security deposit.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l.; Amazon EU S.à r.l.; Amazon.com, Inc.
This UPC Appeals Board decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Amazon, which sought an extension to submit written arguments regarding license agreements and expert opinions just days before the oral hearing. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that the established procedure of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) prioritizes efficiency and fairness. The ruling reinforces the strict adherence to the timeline of the appellate process, ensuring both parties have equal opportunity to present their case during the scheduled hearings.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This UPC decision addressed a challenge to ex parte evidence preservation orders granted by the Paris Local Division. TIRU sought seizure and site inspections against MAGUIN regarding alleged infringement of its waste incineration patent (EP3178578). MAGUIN challenged these measures, arguing lack of urgency and bad faith on TIRU's part. The court ultimately rejected MAGUIN’s request, affirming that the initial urgent measures were justified given the competitive market environment.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
Barco N.V. sought provisional measures against Yealink entities regarding the European patent EP 3 732 827. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the application, finding that there was no sufficient urgency to warrant preliminary relief. While denying the injunction, the court clarified several important procedural matters, including its own territorial competence and the cumulative nature of requirements for granting provisional measures. This decision serves as a reminder to applicants that demonstrating immediate necessity is paramount in urgent UPC proceedings.