European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 40 of 84 · 2,007 total
Aylo Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
Aylo Premium Ltd brought a revocation action against EP 3 822 805 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) and requested that DISH Technologies L.L.C. provide security for legal costs of at least EUR 400,000 under R. 158 RoP, citing insolvency risks within the DISH/EchoStar group. The Court rejected the request, finding that Aylo had not met its burden of proof given the lifting of the going concern qualification, the group's receipt of over USD 8 billion in new funding, and EchoStar's irrevocable declaration to reimburse Aylo's legal costs up to EUR 400,000.
Per Aarsleff A/S v.IMS Robotics GmbH and IMS Robotics Nordic A/S
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 2 129 956. The Claimant (Per Aarsleff A/S) filed a patent infringement action on 20 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 28 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties jointly sought to withdraw their respective claims and requested partial reimbursement of court fees, with no cost decision sought by either side.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3404726, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The order addresses contested legal points regarding the interpretation of patent claims, the evidential value of a TESCAN ANALYTICS report, and the value of the action, while organizing the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for March 13, 2025. The defendant Laser Components SAS did not attend the conference and was informed that a default decision would be rendered regarding it.
Imbox Protection A/S v.Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB
Imbox Protection A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 276 862, filed an application to preserve evidence and inspect property against Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB regarding their EXPRO HUB product. After the Defendants submitted detailed objections demonstrating non-infringement, the Applicant withdrew the application. The Court granted the Defendants' requests for confidentiality protection over Exhibits 17-19 and awarded each Defendant SEK 225,000 in legal costs and expenses, applying a joint ceiling of EUR 38,000 for representation costs.
Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Rectification of Decision)
This is a rectification order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent related to heart valve prostheses. Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (the defendants in the underlying infringement action) applied under Rule 353 RoP to rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, and obvious slips in the court's decision of 15 November 2024. The court granted several rectifications relating to factual inaccuracies on pages 13, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53, and 59 of the decision, while dismissing the remaining requests.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation (Cost Compensation Proceedings)
This procedural order from the Central Division (Milan section) of the Unified Patent Court addressed EOFLOW's application for cost reimbursement following the rejection of Insulet's request for a preliminary injunction (PI) based on alleged infringement of EP 4201327. The Court dismissed EOFLOW's cost application without examining the substance, holding that when a preliminary injunction is followed by proceedings on the merits, cost compensation must be assessed at the conclusion of the overall merits proceedings rather than at the PI stage.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation (Cost Compensation Proceedings)
This procedural order concerns EOFLOW's application for reimbursement of costs incurred in defending against INSULET's request for a provisional injunction (PI) based on alleged infringement of EP 4201327, which the Court had rejected on 22 November 2024. Since the PI proceedings were followed by separate revocation and infringement proceedings on the merits, the Court held that cost compensation must be assessed at the conclusion of the merits proceedings as a whole, rather than parceled out by stage. EOFLOW's application for costs was therefore dismissed without examination of the substance.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appealed a decision by the UPC Local Division The Hague that denied its request for a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. (collectively "Sibionics") for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose monitoring device. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order, finding that the patent claims did not contain added matter, and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sibionics from infringing the patent with its GS1 CGM product, along with information and delivery-up orders.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others
GXD-Bio Corporation sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 346 403 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants filed a preliminary objection arguing the court lacked competence to adjudicate claims for acts predating GXD-Bio's recordal as patent proprietor. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the defendants' arguments concerned standing and substantive ownership rather than jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and allowed an appeal.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
This is a scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. The order sets dates for the interim conference (6 October 2025) and the oral hearing (10 December 2025), and requests the assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Meril GmbH v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned whether a European Patent Attorney who is also a party to proceedings must be represented by an independent representative under Rule 8.1 RoP. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they themselves are parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position (such as Chair of the Board) cannot represent a legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB 14 days to appoint authorised representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 12 February 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1. The order addresses an application under Rule 262A RoP to protect confidential information, classifying certain information contained in the unredacted Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defense and related exhibits as confidential, and restricting access to designated representatives of the Claimant.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendants' objection (Einspruch) challenging the admissibility of an infringement action concerning EP 3 685 783. The court held that the Munich chamber had jurisdiction because, at the time the infringement action was filed on November 20, 2024, the prior interim measures application between the same parties regarding the same patent was already pending before the Court of Appeal, not before another chamber of the Court of First Instance. The court further established that the action was deemed served on December 2, 2024.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned whether a European Patent Attorney who is himself a party to proceedings can represent himself, and whether he can represent a company where he serves as Chair of the Board. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they are themselves parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position cannot represent a legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical 14 days to appoint authorised representatives.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a European Patent Attorney who is a party to proceedings can represent himself, and whether a board chairman can represent a company. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they themselves are parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position cannot represent the legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical 14 days to appoint authorized representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Hamburg Local Division that had denied Daedalus Prime LLC's two US attorneys access to confidential information disclosed by Xiaomi in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 792 100. The Court held that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require the person granted access to be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA, and that the US attorneys' technical expertise and familiarity with the patent justified granting them full access. The orders of the judge-rapporteur of 30 July 2024 and 3 September 2024 were amended to extend access to the two US attorneys.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Court of First Instance's decision declaring inadmissible Suinno's R. 262A RoP application for confidentiality, on the ground that Suinno's representative, who was also its managing director and main shareholder, could not be considered independent under Art. 48(5) UPCA. The Court of Appeal held that no corporate representative or natural person holding extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal person may serve as that legal person's representative before the UPC, regardless of whether they are otherwise qualified as a UPC representative.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
This is a decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Munich, concerning the confirmation of a settlement agreement and a confidentiality order. BSN Medical GmbH had sued the defendants for infringement of European patents EP 3 033 058 and EP 3 831 350, but the parties subsequently settled the dispute. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered that the details of the settlement be treated confidentially, and ruled that each party bears its own costs as agreed in the settlement.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff Dolby International AB withdrew its patent infringement action, and defendants ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France withdrew their nullity counterclaims. The court accepted the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, with partial reimbursement of court fees.
SSAB Europe Oy & SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the reimbursement of costs following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures. The court ordered Tiroler Rohre GmbH to pay SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH €84,033.76 in costs, after reducing the claimed amount of €91,568.76 based on specific objections raised by the respondent regarding excessive hours billed.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that took place before the UPCA entered into force on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and subsequent opt-in. The court held that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on pre-entry-into-force acts of use. The defendants' auxiliary request for a stay and referral to the CJEU was also rejected, and appeal was allowed.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Dolby International AB against several ASUS entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, along with a counterclaim for invalidity filed by certain ASUS defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its main action and the ASUS defendants to withdraw their counterclaim. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, with a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a procedural objection (R. 19.1(a) and R. 20.1 RoP) raised by the defendants against an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 602 692. The defendants argued that the court lacked temporal jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts occurring before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The presiding judge rejected the objection, holding that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA's entry into force and/or between an opt-out and its withdrawal.
SSAB Europe Oy & SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning reimbursement of costs following withdrawal of an application for interim measures. The applicants (SSAB entities) sought reimbursement of €91,568.76, while the respondent (Tiroler Rohre GmbH) argued the costs were excessive. The court partially upheld the applicants' claim, reducing certain time entries and ordering the respondent to pay €84,033.76 by March 15, 2025.