European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 41 of 67 · 1,592 total
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
In a procedural confirmation case, the UPC Paris Local Division confirmed a settlement reached between C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED and NOVAWELL regarding infringement of EP 2265793. The parties had initially engaged in both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. By confirming the settlement, the Court formally dismissed the proceedings while maintaining the confidentiality of the agreement's terms. This decision highlights the UPC's role in providing judicial finality to private commercial resolutions.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal of all claims in the case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc. Both parties mutually consented to drop their infringement claim and counterclaims for revocation regarding EP4070727. The court formally closed the proceedings, noting that no cost decision was required.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural order issued on January 29, 2025, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed all parties in the dispute between Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc. to withdraw their respective claims for infringement and revocation concerning patent EP4070727. While the substantive dispute was dropped, the court addressed procedural matters, setting the value of the cases at EUR 4 million and ordering a partial reimbursement of court fees.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
In a significant decision concerning lithographic printing technology, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf revoked EP 3 594 009 B1 following a counterclaim for revocation. The court also dismissed the infringement action brought by Fujifilm against Kodak entities. This case highlights the critical interplay between jurisdiction, claim construction principles (favoring broad interpretation), and the strict requirements for amending claims under Art. 123(2) EPC. For patent practitioners, this decision underscores that even if an infringement suit is filed, a successful revocation counterclaim can lead to complete invalidation of the patent.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd.
Qualcomm Incorporated initiated a patent infringement action against several mobile technology companies, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd. However, before any substantive decision was reached, Qualcomm filed a request to withdraw the suit due to reaching a settlement with Defendant 1. The UPC Local Division Munich permitted this withdrawal, declaring the proceedings closed. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding voluntary withdrawal and clarifies the rules governing court fee reimbursement in such scenarios.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC decision addresses a procedural gap regarding the reimbursement of court fees when an application for interim measures is withdrawn. The Court ruled that despite the strict wording of the Rules of Procedure, the principle allowing fee recovery upon withdrawal could be analogously applied to interim measure applications. This provides clarity and predictability for practitioners dealing with early-stage litigation in the UPC.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Lenovo initiated infringement proceedings against ASUSTek and its subsidiaries before the UPC Local Division in Munich regarding EP patent 3 682 587. The court issued a procedural order setting out the next steps in the litigation. Key dates were established for an interim video conference hearing (September 2025) and the main oral proceedings (November 2025). This case highlights the structured, multi-stage nature of UPC infringement actions.
SnowPixie Co., Ltd. v.Unnamed (Verletzungsklägerin)
This UPC decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning the provision of security for legal costs in an infringement case. The court found that while the respondent (the defendant) faced financial strain, evidenced by an operating loss, they were still capable of providing the required security deposit. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to furnish €62,600.00 in security, rejecting the claimant's initial demand for a much higher sum.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek Computer Inc.
In this UPC case involving Lenovo against ASUSTEK entities, the Local Division issued an order consolidating the proceedings. The court decided to hear both the infringement claim brought by Lenovo and the counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 682 587 together. This procedural step is significant as it streamlines the litigation process, allowing the validity of the patent to be assessed concurrently with its alleged infringement.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision from the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) concerns a procedural application filed by a patent attorney seeking public access to case documents. The court granted this request, specifically allowing viewing of materials related to the counterclaim for revocation (CC_581177/2023). This ruling highlights the UPC's commitment to transparency while maintaining strict boundaries regarding which files are accessible.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
In this UPC decision regarding provisional measures, the court addressed a request for security deposit to cover legal costs in an infringement proceeding. Although the claimant cited negative credit ratings and operating losses of the respondent, the court ultimately granted a reduced security order of €62,600.00. This ruling highlights the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness with financial risk management, demonstrating that economic hardship alone does not automatically preclude the requirement for security.
Sanofi SA (and various Sanofi entities) v.Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
In a procedural order concerning multiple infringement actions, the UPC Local Division Munich set key dates for the litigation between Sanofi and Zentiva. The court scheduled an Interim Conference via videoconference on July 17, 2025, followed by in-person oral hearings from October 14 to 17, 2025. This decision moves the complex pharmaceutical patent dispute closer to a substantive hearing, allowing both parties time to prepare their arguments and counterclaims.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (collectively 'the Abbott companies')
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal granted DexCom Inc.'s request to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and associated companies. This withdrawal followed mutual consent from both parties, allowing the court to declare all proceedings closed. The decision is significant as it reinforces the flexibility of the UPC system regarding case closure when parties agree, while also providing a clear procedural path for fee reimbursement.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics addresses several key motions, including claim amendments and confidentiality. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, a crucial step allowing the claimant to adapt its legal strategy based on the defendant's recent submissions. While other requests were dismissed, this decision keeps the infringement and revocation proceedings alive as they move toward an Interim Conference.
Dainese S.p.A. v.ALPINESTARS S.p.A., ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L., HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY, ZUND.STOFF AUGSBURG, MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L.
This procedural order addresses a request by Dainese S.p.A. to protect confidential information related to a settlement agreement reached with one of the defendants (Defendant No. 4). The UPC Local Division affirmed that this document, which details the waiver of claims in the main infringement proceeding, qualifies as protected confidential information under Article 58 UPCA and relevant rules. Consequently, access to the unredacted version was severely restricted, highlighting the court's commitment to balancing transparency with the protection of sensitive commercial dealings.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars Research S.p.A., ULRICH HERPICH E.K, Alpinestars S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L. , HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY, MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L.
This procedural order in a UPC case addressed the claimant's request for protection of confidential information. The Court found that the submitted documents met the criteria for confidentiality, recognizing their economic value and non-public nature. Crucially, the ruling balanced the fundamental right to be heard against the need to protect trade secrets by strictly limiting access to specific individuals from the involved defendants.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC decision is a procedural order issued by the Local Division of Munich in an infringement case involving Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz GmbH regarding EP patent 3 215 288. The court addressed scheduling conflicts, rescheduling the interim hearing to May 28, 2025, and confirming the oral hearing for July 1, 2025. This order sets clear procedural timelines, including a deadline of May 14, 2025, for written submissions.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the procedural admissibility of a standalone revocation action filed by an intervener (Photon Wave) in an ongoing infringement case. The Local Division ultimately ruled that, based on principles of fairness and efficiency, the intervention was procedurally inadmissible, despite arguments regarding the general competence of the UPC. This ruling reinforces strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure concerning the rights and limitations of interveners within existing litigation frameworks.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Newyu, Inc.)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation involving DexCom, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories/associated companies regarding patent EP 3 831 282. The court emphasized that such withdrawals are permissible during appeal proceedings if no final decision is binding. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to terminate litigation.
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC decision addressed an application by the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office seeking access to a case file. The Court ruled that while public access is generally the rule, the paramount interest in maintaining the integrity and impartiality of ongoing proceedings outweighs the applicant's general interest in accessing specific documents. The ruling emphasizes that for purely legal issues, knowledge derived from existing court orders or pending appeals may suffice, negating the need for confidential file inspection.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (jointly referred to as 'the Abbott companies')
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted DexCom, Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiaries. Concurrently, the Abbott companies agreed to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. This mutual withdrawal resulted in the closure of the proceedings, meaning the patent EP 3 435 866 remains fully in force across all relevant territories. The decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding withdrawals during appeal.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed the procedural consequences of withdrawing counterclaims for both patent revocation and a FRAND license offer. The Court permitted the withdrawals, declaring the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling clarified that even though a FRAND license offer counterclaim is related to the main infringement action, it constitutes an independent proceeding requiring court fees, thereby preventing a full refund upon withdrawal.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural matters, specifically an application for a cost decision and related requests for confidentiality protection. The Court has signaled its intent to grant Meril unlimited access to the costs proceedings while ensuring that restrictions under Rule 262.2 RoP prevent disclosure of confidential information to third parties or the public. This ruling highlights the delicate balance UPC courts must strike between transparency in litigation and protecting sensitive commercial data.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural matters within a larger infringement action concerning EP 3 646 825. The court lifted all existing deadlines related to the cost decision and confidentiality protection applications, following arguments from the defendants regarding the impossibility of compliance under provisional protective measures. This ruling is significant as it provides necessary procedural relief, ensuring that parties can properly engage in ancillary proceedings without being unduly constrained by conflicting interim orders.