European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 37 of 67 · 1,592 total
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for infringing European Patent EP 2 028 981, which covers a juice extractor. The court found infringement and issued significant remedies, including orders to destroy and recall the infringing products in various EU member states. Beyond the core finding of infringement, the decision provided important guidance on how intertemporal law applies within the UPC framework, particularly concerning acts that span before and after the UPCA's entry into force.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC's Board of Appeal addressed requests from 10x Genomics to recover court fees paid during three separate appeal proceedings. The court ruled in favor of 10x, granting partial refunds based on when they withdrew their appeals relative to the procedural stages (written vs. oral). This decision is significant for patent practitioners as it clarifies the application of fee refund rules under the UPC Agreement.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a complex jurisdictional issue arising from pending ECJ case law regarding international jurisdiction under Brussels Ia. Given that a fundamental question of European Law was unresolved, the court opted to separate the proceedings concerning specific national parts (Poland, Spain, UK) from the main bundle patent action. This decision aims to prevent unnecessary delays in enforcing potential rights related to those ready-to-decide national parts.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning appeals before the UPC's Appeals Board, 10x Genomics successfully petitioned for the refund of court fees. The decision confirmed that when an appeal is withdrawn before certain stages of proceedings are completed, the appellant is entitled to a partial reimbursement of the associated costs. This case highlights the practical application of cost recovery rules within the complex procedural framework of the UPC.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully sued NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK for infringing EP 2 028 981, a patent covering juice extractors. The court found infringement regarding the contested embodiment (slow juicers). Crucially, the decision also provided significant legal guidance on intertemporal law in UPC proceedings, clarifying when UPCA rules apply versus national laws for past and ongoing infringing acts. This case is important for practitioners navigating the transition period of the Unified Patent Court.
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 order, the UPC granted Promosome LLC's request to classify specific exhibits (VB 4a and VB 4b), which contain confidential license agreement terms between the parties, as confidential. The ruling establishes strict limitations on who can access this sensitive information, restricting it primarily to authorized legal representatives and their support staff. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting trade secrets within ongoing infringement actions.
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 a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Promosome LLC's request to classify specific license agreement exhibits as confidential against the BioNTech/Pfizer consortium. This decision reinforces the protection of trade secrets and sensitive commercial information within the UPC framework. The Court meticulously defined who could access the documents, ensuring that confidentiality obligations extend beyond the conclusion of the proceedings.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement and revocation action against CUPOWER for allegedly infringing its Boost-PFC circuit patent (EP 2 011 218 B1) used in LED drivers. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision underscores the high bar required to prove infringement or successfully challenge a granted European patent within the unified system.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision concerns an application by 10x Genomics to withdraw its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The appeal concerned a patent infringement case involving EP 4108782, where Vizgen had requested the disclosure of specific documents from 10x. Both parties agreed to the withdrawal of the appeals. The court accepted this request, formally concluding the appellate proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural decision concerning EP 4108782, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed 10x Genomics to withdraw its appeals against orders issued by the court of first instance. The case involved disputes over document submission requests made by Vizgen during an infringement action initiated by 10x. Both parties consented to the withdrawal, leading the appellate body to terminate the proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 4108782, the Court of Appeal allowed 10x Genomics to withdraw all its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division in Hamburg. Vizgen agreed to this withdrawal. This decision highlights the flexibility within the UPC framework regarding appeal withdrawals, provided no final judgment has been rendered on the underlying infringement case.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited
In a significant ruling on provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal affirmed the validity and infringement likelihood of EP 2 152 073 concerning herbicide compositions. The court confirmed that the balance of interests favored granting an injunction against Sumi Agro. Furthermore, it clarified procedural aspects, specifically rejecting the requirement for Syngenta to provide security for enforcement, which is a key relief for patent holders seeking immediate protection.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses procedural motions regarding the exchange of further written pleadings in a patent infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 755 901 B1. The court ruled against both the claimant (Hartmann Packaging A/S) and the respondents (Omni-Pac GmbH). The ruling underscores strict adherence to the UPC's procedural timetable, requiring parties to utilize their allotted submissions or formally request additional pleadings under R. 36 VerfO with strong justification.
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 this complex pharmaceutical patent dispute, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a dual action involving infringement and revocation. Following unanimous requests from all parties, the Court opted to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division, citing procedural efficiency as a key factor. Crucially, however, the Local Division decided to proceed with the main infringement action itself. Furthermore, the Defendants were granted a necessary one-month extension to ensure they could address all issues related to the infringement proceedings.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the Headwater v. Samsung case sets the stage for a complex UPC trial concerning patent infringement and revocation of EP 2 391 947. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date and formally established the financial scope of the dispute, valuing the claim at €2 million and the counterclaim at €3 million. While settlement discussions were noted, the court maintained strict procedural control over evidence and arguments, particularly regarding late-filed documents and invalidity attacks.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted Curio Bioscience to withdraw its appeal against an earlier decision concerning security for legal costs. The court found that since 10x Genomics had not formally objected to the withdrawal request within the statutory timeframe, it could not be considered to have a legitimate interest in maintaining the proceedings. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility available under UPC rules regarding appeals and withdrawals.
Applicant v.Defendant
In this procedural order, the Applicant sought to secure and preserve evidence (Saisie) against the Defendant based on a high probability of patent infringement. The court ultimately rejected the request, finding that the applicant's allegations were too vague and lacked sufficient factual detail to meet the threshold for provisional measures. The ruling also questioned the scope of the requested measures, particularly those requiring active participation from the defendant in setting up complex test environments.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural ruling concerning an infringement action, the UPC addressed the issue of invalid party representation for the claimant. Despite the respondent's request to dismiss the case due to the representative's lack of authority, the court rejected this argument. The panel ruled that while the initial representation was defective, it did not invalidate the entire proceeding. Instead, the claimant was granted 30 days to appoint a new, valid representative who would be required to ratify all prior submissions.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC decision addressed a complex provisional measures case concerning evidence preservation for an infringement action involving hybrid generators. The court upheld the initial order allowing inspection and data seizure but made key adjustments regarding access to sensitive materials. Most significantly, the court ruled that the respondent was no longer obligated to pay the daily coercive fines previously imposed due to non-compliance with IT disclosure requirements.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this significant UPC revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. challenged the validity of Juul Labs International Inc.'s vaporization device patent (EP 3 504 989). While the Claimant succeeded in challenging the original scope of the patent, the Court ultimately allowed the Defendant's application to amend the claims. This decision demonstrates the complex interplay between revocation proceedings and claim amendments within the UPC framework, resulting in a modified maintenance of the patent.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge in a revocation action concerning EP 2 611 800. The original defendant, Virdia Inc., sought substitution by International N&H Denmark ApS because the latter was the true proprietor under Member State law, despite Virdia Inc. being the registered proprietor. The Court accepted this application, confirming that revocation actions must target the actual patent owner. This ruling clarifies the interplay between the 'registered proprietor' and the 'Rule 8.5 proprietor' within UPC proceedings, ensuring that litigation is properly directed against the party with enforceable rights.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance rejected Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH's request to amend its infringement action to include the Netherlands. The core issue was not patent validity or infringement itself, but whether the Claimant acted with due diligence after learning that the national part of EP 3 742 231 had been restored in the Netherlands. The Court found that the delay between becoming aware of the restoration and filing the amendment request was unreasonable, setting a clear precedent regarding procedural timeliness in UPC litigation.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. initiated a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492 held by Dyson Technology Limited before the UPC Central Division Milan. The parties subsequently reached an agreement and signed a term sheet to settle the dispute. Following this settlement, SharkNinja requested withdrawal of its action, which the court allowed. This decision highlights how amicable settlements can lead to the early closure of complex patent litigation within the UPC framework.
Fapa Vital AG v.Valentis Baltic, UAB
This decision addresses the procedural issue of reimbursing court fees when an application for provisional measures is withdrawn. The UPC confirmed that despite a technical gap in the Rules of Procedure (RoP), the provisions governing fee reimbursement should be applied by analogy to applications, not just full actions. Since Fapa Vital AG withdrew its application before the closure of the written procedure, it was awarded 60% of its court fees back.