European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 38 of 67 · 1,592 total
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. initiated a revocation action against Dyson Technology Limited concerning European Patent EP 2043492 before the UPC Central Division Milan. However, both parties subsequently reached an agreement and signed a term sheet to settle the litigation. The Court formally allowed the withdrawal of the revocation action upon mutual consent, declaring the proceedings closed. This case highlights how procedural flexibility within the UPC allows for the amicable termination of complex patent disputes when settlement is reached.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order addresses complex issues within a UPC infringement and revocation counterclaim case involving Heraeus and Vibrantz regarding EP 3 215 288. The court corrected previous orders concerning party substitution in the revocation proceedings. Crucially, the court deferred a decision on an application to bar the action based on prior national decisions until after the main hearing, prioritizing the smooth conduct of the overall trial.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court rejected a request by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. to introduce evidence regarding a Chinese patent's invalidation decision into the UPC proceedings. The court found that the late submission and failure to provide the document in German prejudiced the preparation for the upcoming oral hearing. This case highlights the strict procedural requirements of the UPC, emphasizing timely submissions and adherence to the official language of the proceedings.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order from the Munich Local Division addresses complex issues arising in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 215 288. The court corrected an earlier decision regarding party substitution in the counterclaim and deferred a ruling on an application to bar proceedings (RoP362). By reserving the decision until after the main hearing, the UPC ensures that procedural rulings do not disrupt the planned unified trial schedule for both infringement and validity issues.
NJ DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Court addressed a request by GISELA MAYER GmbH seeking security for costs against NJ DIFFUSION SARL. Despite concerns raised regarding NJ DIFFUSION's financial stability, the court found that the company provided sufficient documentation, including positive expert accounts and annual reports, to counter the insolvency risk claim. Consequently, the request for a cost guarantee was rejected, allowing the main infringement proceedings to continue.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a dispute over the refund percentage for court fees following the withdrawal of patent infringement claims. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought an increase from 40% to 60%, arguing that they were not properly informed about the conclusion of written proceedings. The Court upheld the initial ruling, emphasizing that despite the complexity of the case, the established framework for fee refunds was maintained. This decision reinforces the court's discretion under Rule 370.9(e) EPGVerfO to limit refunds in cases where the judicial effort expended is deemed substantial.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, Panasonic Holdings Corporation challenged a lower court's ruling regarding the percentage of court fee refunds after withdrawing its infringement claims against Xiaomi and OPPO. Panasonic sought an increase from 40% to 60%, arguing that procedural timing was unclear. However, the Local Division upheld the original 40% refund, emphasizing that while the case was complex, the statutory rules governing fee reduction based on withdrawal timing must be strictly applied.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the scope of fee refunds when patent litigation is withdrawn. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought a 60% refund of court costs after settling its infringement case against OPPO and OROPE, arguing the complexity warranted an 'exceptional' status under Rule 370.9(e). However, the Local Division upheld the initial ruling, limiting the refund to 40%. The judgment emphasizes that while complex cases generate high workloads, this factor alone is insufficient to override the general principle of proportional fee recovery based on the stage of proceedings.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
In this UPC costs case (UPC_CFI_2/2023), the court addressed procedural issues surrounding cost allocation following a summary proceeding on interim measures. The claimants successfully argued for the reimbursement of substantial legal fees (€337,431.50). Crucially, the decision established clear rules regarding the finality of costs determined in summary proceedings and reinforced strict adherence to filing deadlines under Rule 151 EPGVerfO. This ruling provides important guidance on how cost claims must be structured and pursued within the UPC framework.
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH; S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
In a significant decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Biolitec's attempt to secure an injunction against Lightguide companies concerning their laser fiber products. The court emphasized that provisional relief requires demonstrating immediate and irreparable harm that cannot wait for a full merits hearing. By dismissing the appeal, the UPC reinforced strict procedural requirements for seeking interim protection, particularly regarding the substantiation of market damage claims.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This procedural order in the UPC case between Hand Held Products and Scandit AG confirms the upcoming oral hearing date for infringement proceedings related to EP 3 866 051. The court addressed several key procedural issues, including allowing a partial withdrawal of claims and setting the financial value of the entire dispute at €7.5 million. While no substantive ruling was made on infringement or revocation, the order provides clear guidelines on evidence presentation (e.g., use of PowerPoint) and the handling of delayed submissions.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought provisional measures against Speed Care Mineral GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of its patent on clay-based hemostatic agents. The UPC Local Division in Hamburg dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to provide sufficient certainty that the Defendant's product contained a binder element as required by the patent claims. This decision highlights the high evidentiary threshold required for applicants seeking urgent relief like preliminary injunctions under the UPC framework.
Hanshow Technology Co, Ltd v.VusionGroup SA
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural disputes regarding costs and the validity of an appeal against a cost determination. VusionGroup argued that Hanshow failed to meet formal requirements for filing the appeal (lack of separate grounds/statement) and defaulted on court fees. The Court ruled in favor of Hanshow, confirming that the initial application for admission contained sufficient detail, thus satisfying procedural requirements for appeals concerning costs. This decision clarifies the flexible nature of procedural rules when challenging cost orders within the UPC.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this procedural order concerning enforcement security, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. The Applicant had initially deposited EUR 2 million to secure a preliminary injunction but subsequently obtained and provided an equivalent bank guarantee. The Court found that the Applicant had a legitimate interest in exchanging the deposit for the bank guarantee due to logistical and economic reasons. Consequently, the Court ordered the repayment of the original security deposit.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG, Himson Engineering Private Limited
This UPC decision addressed a public access application filed by Bhagat Textile Engineers seeking access to documents in an infringement and revocation action. The court ultimately denied the access request, emphasizing that while transparency is important, it must be balanced against the integrity of the judicial process and the procedural rights of the parties involved. The ruling highlights the high bar for 'public interest' when a party seeks information primarily to support its own litigation strategy.
CRETES NV v.HYLER BV
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Brussels addressed a request by CRETES NV to exclude specific new arguments and claims introduced by HYLER BV into ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings. The Court partially granted the request, agreeing to exclude detailed non-infringement arguments and related documents from consideration. This ruling highlights the court's power to manage case complexity and maintain procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
In a procedural ruling within the UPC Local Division, the court addressed Chainzone Technology's request for access to case files related to EP2643717. Despite initial delays and considerations regarding ongoing proceedings, the court ultimately granted the requested file access. This decision underscores the importance of transparency in UPC proceedings, even when preliminary measures like evidence preservation are involved.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
This UPC decision confirms a settlement between Dyson Technology Limited and SharkNinja. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims—the infringement action by Dyson and the revocation counterclaim by SharkNinja. The court accepted this agreement, terminating both proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can efficiently resolve complex patent disputes within the UPC framework.
Sodastream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
This UPC Court of Appeal order concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Aarke AB against a finding of infringement made by the CFI. The court permitted the withdrawal because the claimant, Sodastream Industries Ltd., did not object to the request. While Aarke was deemed the unsuccessful party and liable for costs, the proceedings were closed upon the successful withdrawal.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of infringement actions. Network System Technologies LLC had deposited substantial funds to cover legal costs incurred by Audi AG during the proceedings. Since NTS subsequently withdrew its claims and closed the case at the Munich Local Division, the Court of Appeal granted the application for the full return of these security amounts. This ruling provides clarity on the procedural mechanism for releasing financial guarantees when litigation concludes prematurely.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
In this procedural matter before the UPC Court of Appeal, Network System Technologies LLC sought the release of substantial security deposits previously ordered by the Munich Local Division. The security had been required to cover potential legal costs related to infringement proceedings against Volkswagen AG. Crucially, NTS subsequently withdrew its infringement actions at the lower court level. The Court of Appeal agreed that with the withdrawal of the main claims, the basis for maintaining the security vanished. This decision provides a clear procedural precedent regarding the timely release of funds when underlying litigation is terminated by the claimant.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S Machinery B.V.
This procedural order addressed the scope of access to an expert's report following a seizure of documents related to alleged patent infringement (EP4171996). The Court balanced the need for the claimant to assess its case against the defendant's interests in confidentiality. By finding that the Defendant had not raised objections and the information was limited, the UPC granted access to specific employees of the claimant, allowing them to evaluate potential infringement and determine next steps.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich terminated both an infringement action brought by Dyson Technology Limited and a counterclaim for patent invalidity filed by SharkNinja. The termination was based on a mutual agreement between the parties to withdraw all claims in both proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can lead to swift procedural closure 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 this procedural order concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, the UPC Local Division addressed a request for an extension of time periods. The Court balanced the principle of strict adherence to statutory deadlines against practical realities, specifically noting mutual holiday absences in Europe and China. Although the main request for three weeks was denied, the court granted a one-week extension to ensure procedural fairness across all defendants involved in the infringement action.