European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 39 of 67 · 1,592 total
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.
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.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
In this UPC case, SWARCO FUTURIT sought evidence preservation regarding alleged patent infringement by Yunex GmbH concerning specialized collection optics used in LED display panels. The court ultimately dismissed the application because of procedural actions taken by the respondent, making further investigation unnecessary. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements within the UPC framework for preliminary measures like evidence preservation.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Sweden) AB, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS (Danemark) ApS, EJNER HESSEL A/S
This procedural order addressed POSCO's request to access confidential pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against the XPENG group. POSCO sought access to inform its parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO regarding patent EP3290200, which is central to both actions. The Court ultimately granted limited access, recognizing that claim interpretation must be consistent across both infringement and revocation proceedings, while maintaining confidentiality for sensitive technical exhibits.
Imbox Protection A/S v.Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB
This UPC case involved an application to preserve evidence concerning the product EXPRO HUB. Although the Applicant ultimately withdrew its request for preservation measures, the Court made significant rulings regarding costs and confidentiality. The court confirmed that legal cost ceilings apply jointly across multiple defendants in such proceedings. Crucially, it also imposed strict restrictions on the use of confidential information shared by the Defendants, setting a precedent for protecting trade secrets even when initial applications fail.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
This UPC order addresses procedural rectifications requested by Meril GmbH in the infringement case concerning Edwards Lifesciences' heart valve patent (EP 3 646 825). The defendants sought corrections to technical descriptions, jurisdictional statements, and references to prior art/expert opinions within the original decision. The court accepted several of these amendments, ensuring accuracy in the record while maintaining the ongoing nature of the dispute.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This UPC procedural order sets the stage for a complex infringement case involving advanced electronic components. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd sued Laser Components SAS over patent EP3404726, focusing on specific electrode structures in PKB chips. The court confirmed key legal and factual disputes, including the interpretation of technical terms and the weight given to expert analysis. The parties have now moved into the oral hearing phase scheduled for March 13, 2025.
Per Aarsleff A/S v.IMS Robotics GmbH and IMS Robotics Nordic A/S
In a procedural decision concerning EP 2 129 956, the Unified Patent Court allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This case highlights how UPC proceedings can be concluded amicably through mutual consent, even when complex actions are involved. Practitioners should note that while the main dispute was dropped, the court still managed the procedural aspects, including setting the value in dispute and ordering partial reimbursement of court fees.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
In a revocation action concerning EP3 822 805 B1, AYLO PREMIUM LTD sought security for legal costs from DISH Technologies L.L.C., citing high insolvency risks within the Defendant's corporate group. However, the UPC Central Division rejected this request. The Court found that the Defendant provided sufficient evidence of its solvency, including a declaration from EchoStar undertaking to cover potential costs. This decision highlights how financial stability and supporting declarations can influence procedural rulings in complex patent litigation.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation
This procedural order addressed a claim for cost reimbursement filed by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. following the rejection of its preliminary injunction application against Insulet Corporation. The Court ruled that because the underlying patent litigation was proceeding to the merits, costs related to the initial PI phase could not be settled separately. The ruling reinforces the principle that cost assessment must align with the final outcome of the entire case, preventing fragmented financial assessments in complex IP disputes.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation
This UPC procedural order addressed a claim for cost reimbursement filed by EOFLOW following the rejection of its preliminary injunction application against INSULET. The Court ruled that since the underlying infringement case on the merits was still pending, costs could not be awarded based solely on the PI outcome. The ruling reinforces the principle that in complex patent litigation, particularly when an interim measure is followed by a full trial, cost assessment must wait until the final judgment.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal sided with Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., granting an injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The court set aside the initial CFI decision which had found potential added matter in the patent claims. This case highlights the high bar for obtaining preliminary relief while also providing clarity on how general injunctions can be justified based on a single type of infringement, making it crucial reading for medical device IP practitioners.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Eurobio Scientific
In this UPC case, GXD-Bio Corporation sued Myriad Genetics and others for alleged infringement of EP 3 346 403. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence to hear claims related to acts predating the claimant's registration as proprietor. The Judge-rapporteur rejected this objection, affirming the UPC's subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement actions. This ruling clarifies that standing issues are matters of merit and not grounds for excluding the case at the preliminary stage.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
In a procedural order issued on February 12, 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC established detailed confidentiality rules for sensitive information exchanged between Ona Patents SL and Apple Inc. The ruling specifically classified certain unredacted documents as confidential under Article 58 UPCA. This decision highlights the court's proactive role in protecting trade secrets during high-stakes patent litigation involving major tech players.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
Syngenta Limited initiated an infringement action against Sumi Agro entities concerning European patent EP 2 152 073, which relates to crop protection technology. The Court of First Instance in Munich issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the case. Both parties are summoned to participate in the Interim Conference and the subsequent Oral Hearing, where the core issues of infringement and potential revocation will be debated.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the scope of confidential information protection in an infringement case involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi. The court overturned a previous decision that denied access to Daedalus's US attorneys, recognizing their trustworthiness and necessity for effective litigation. This decision clarifies the boundaries of R. 262A RoP, confirming that professional assistants outside the strict definition of UPC representatives can be granted necessary access.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Respondent 1 / SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a critical procedural issue concerning representation before the court. The Court ruled that self-representation is invalid for lawyers and European Patent Attorneys when they are parties to the case, reinforcing strict due process requirements. Additionally, it clarified limitations on corporate representatives acting for legal entities if they lack independence. Consequently, the Court did not dismiss the access request but instead granted a 14-day grace period for the respondents to appoint proper authorized counsel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation before the court. The ruling firmly establishes that self-representation is invalid for lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are parties to the proceedings. Additionally, it reinforces the principle that corporate representatives holding high-level management roles cannot represent their companies due to independence requirements. The court provided a temporary grace period of 14 days for the involved parties to rectify these procedural defects by appointing proper legal counsel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Meril GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation in the Unified Patent Court, specifically concerning public access requests and party standing. The court ruled that self-representation is invalid for both lawyers/patent attorneys acting as parties and corporate officers holding high-level management roles. This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for legal independence under the UPC Agreement. The decision did not resolve the underlying merits of the case but instead issued an exceptional order, granting the involved parties a short window to appoint proper representatives and remedy procedural defects.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH
This UPC case focused on procedural jurisdiction and admissibility rather than the merits of infringement. The claimant, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, filed an infringement suit in Munich against S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International and Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH regarding patent EP 3 685 783. The respondents argued that the case was inadmissible because a similar action was pending elsewhere under Article 33(2) EPC. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, confirming Munich's jurisdiction by clarifying that an appeal does not constitute a 'case pending before another local chamber.'
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding party representation, specifically concerning confidentiality applications in an infringement case. The court upheld the finding that Suinno's representative lacked the necessary independence because he held extensive administrative and financial powers within his own company. This ruling reinforces strict interpretations of Art. 48 UPCA, emphasizing the absolute requirement for legal representatives to be sufficiently distant from their client's internal management.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
BSN Medical GmbH initiated infringement proceedings against Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V. concerning European patents EP 3 831 350 and EP 3 033 058. Rather than proceeding to a full trial, the parties successfully reached an out-of-court settlement agreement. The UPC court confirmed this agreement, ensuring that the sensitive terms of the settlement remain confidential, providing a clear example of how settlements are formalized within the unified patent system.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case, the respondents challenged the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringement acts that occurred before the UPC Agreement came into force. The court decisively rejected this objection, affirming its competence to hear claims concerning pre-UPC period activities. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the temporal scope of the UPC's jurisdiction, providing certainty for claimants pursuing historical infringement claims.
SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This UPC decision concerns a cost assessment application following the withdrawal of an interim measure request. The court found the claim admissible and necessary, establishing that costs incurred by the claimant were recoverable. Although the respondent successfully argued for reductions in specific time entries due to lack of plausibility, the overall reimbursement amount was significantly upheld.