European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 42 of 67 · 1,592 total
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 3 646 825, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed Meril's request for a partial stay of proceedings related to cost decisions and confidential information. Despite arguments from both sides regarding the need for a tailored suspension, the Court ultimately dismissed Meril's application. The decision underscores the strict interpretation of procedural rules within the UPC framework.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed procedural applications related to costs and confidentiality in a case involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether the proceedings concerning confidential information should be stayed pending an appeal decision. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the request for a partial stay of cost proceedings, which triggered the closure of the related workflow regarding confidentiality.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V. successfully obtained a procedural order from the UPC Court of First Instance to preserve evidence against P.T.S. Machinery B.V. The case revolves around EP4171996, a patent covering modular trailer systems and jack cradles used for heavy lifting. Mammoet alleged that PTS was producing and supplying an infringing 'Mechanical Construction' component. The court granted the application, compelling PTS to provide access to its premises and digital data under strict conditions.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order in the Fujifilm v. Kodak case sets the stage for a complex oral hearing concerning patent infringement of EP 3 511 174. The court focused heavily on jurisdictional and legal questions, particularly how to treat alleged infringing acts that occurred before the UPC Agreement entered into force. Furthermore, detailed technical clarification is required from both parties regarding specific product embodiments (SONORA XTRA-3) and the scope of remedies sought across various territories.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In this revocation action concerning electronic vapour products, the UPC Central Division ruled that the core claim (Claim 1) lacked inventive step and was therefore invalidated. However, the court adopted a nuanced approach, maintaining the patent in part by upholding the independent validity of specific dependent claims (6, 7, and 8). This decision highlights the importance of analyzing the inventive step on a claim-by-claim basis, even when the main independent claim fails.
Sanofi SA (and associated Sanofi entities) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. (and associated Accord Healthcare entities, STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France)
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addresses multiple infringement actions involving Sanofi and various generic competitors, including Accord Healthcare and Stada. The court did not rule on the merits but instead focused heavily on case management, setting specific financial values for both the claims and counterclaims. Sanofi was immediately tasked with correcting significant deficiencies in its formal submissions regarding jurisdiction and scope of the claims, highlighting the strict procedural requirements within the UPC.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This order addresses a procedural dispute regarding the costs associated with public access requests to court documents within UPC proceedings. The judge-rapporteur clarified that Article 69 UPCA, which governs cost allocation, is not applicable when parties are consulted by the judge-rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. This ruling sets a clear boundary on who can seek reimbursement of legal costs in these specific procedural contexts, emphasizing that public access requests do not automatically trigger standard cost recovery mechanisms.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural hurdle in cross-border litigation: establishing good service when traditional methods fail. The applicant sought provisional measures against a defendant domiciled in China. After formal attempts via the Hague Service Convention stalled due to inaction by Chinese authorities, the Court ruled that publication of the default judgment on its website, combined with email notification, satisfied the principle of effective legal protection and constituted valid service. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners dealing with defendants in jurisdictions where judicial cooperation is slow or non-existent. It reinforces the UPC's commitment to ensuring substantive justice over strict adherence to procedural formalities.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application filed by the defendants (XSYS group) seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, consented to this change. The Court granted the request, establishing English as the official language for the main infringement action (No. ACT_46804/2024). This ruling highlights the importance of party agreement in determining procedural parameters within the UPC.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. initiated a revocation action against VMR Products LLC challenging European patent EP 3 626 092, which covers vaporizer devices (electronic cigarettes). The core argument centered on the lack of inventive step regarding features like a translucent cartomizer body. The UPC Central Division ultimately dismissed the revocation action, upholding the validity of the patent. This decision reinforces the high bar for demonstrating non-obviousness in technical fields, particularly when addressing perceived design improvements.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge concerning service of a default judgment in provisional measures proceedings involving a defendant domiciled in China. After extensive attempts at formal service via the Chinese competent authority failed due to delays and eventual refusal, the Court ruled that good service could be established through an alternative method. By publishing the decision on the UPC website and notifying the defendant by email, the Court ensured the principle of effective legal protection was upheld, allowing the default judgment to proceed.
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
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed an application for rectification concerning EP 3 065 184 B1. The court dismissed the request, finding that the original decision was accurate and did not contain any clerical mistakes or 'obvious slips.' This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of Rule 353 RoP regarding when a party can seek to amend a judicial order.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural issues concerning cost determination following a provisional measures case. The court ruled that deadlines for filing costs claims are tied to substantive decisions, not interim orders. Crucially, it affirmed that the principle allowing successful parties to claim legal costs (EPC Art. 69) applies even when no full infringement or validity proceedings have been initiated, provided the initial action was unsuccessful.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
This UPC case involved an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP3977921, related to diabetes care technology. Both the Claimant (Abbott) and the Defendants (Dexcom entities) mutually agreed to withdraw all actions. The Court formally declared the proceedings closed based on this consent, avoiding a substantive ruling on infringement or validity.
Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
In this UPC decision, Amazon sought the confidential classification and protection of sensitive commercial documents related to its licensing negotiations with Nokia. The Court partially granted the request, establishing a provisional order that specific information—such as negotiation timelines, license offers, and business models—must be treated confidentially under Article 58 EPC. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting trade secrets within litigation while maintaining transparency where possible.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case involving N.J DIFFUSION SARL and GISELA MAYER GmbH addressed a request for an on-site visual inspection of disputed wigs. Although the Court found that the requested measure was not strictly an 'experiment' under the Rules of Procedure, it ultimately rejected the request as unnecessary because detailed photographic evidence had already been submitted by the claimant. The case will proceed with the conference of directions held online.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In a case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc., the Unified Patent Court proceedings were brought for infringement and revocation of EP3977921. However, both parties mutually consented to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The UPC subsequently declared the entire proceeding closed, highlighting how procedural agreements can lead to early closure in complex patent disputes.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In this UPC case, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. initiated an infringement action against Dexcom Inc., which included a counterclaim for revocation of EP3977921. However, both parties subsequently consented to the withdrawal of all actions. The Court formally declared the proceedings closed based on this mutual agreement. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing cases to be terminated amicably before substantive rulings are made. It serves as a reminder for practitioners that case closure can occur through consent withdrawals rather than litigation outcomes.
Amazon.com, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a request by Amazon to impose additional confidentiality restrictions on documents within the ongoing appeal proceedings against Nokia. The core issue was whether new, stricter protection was needed beyond what had already been established by the Local Division in the main infringement case. The Board ultimately denied Amazon's request, finding that the existing court orders were sufficient and that Amazon's requests lacked necessary specificity regarding the information to be protected.
Sanofi Mature IP / Sanofi SA v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order addresses a corporate restructuring within the Sanofi group, specifically concerning the patent ownership of EP 2 493 466. The UPC Court accepted the request to substitute the original claimant, Sanofi Mature IP, with its successor entity, Sanofi SA. This decision ensures that the ongoing infringement actions and related counterclaims continue seamlessly under the new legal proprietor. For practitioners, this highlights the UPC's flexibility in accommodating complex corporate changes without disrupting active litigation.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Commuincation Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
In this UPC case, NEC Corporation initiated a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning EP 3 057 321. Before the written procedure concluded, the Claimant voluntarily withdrew the suit due to a contractual agreement reached with the Defendants. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed. Crucially, the court ruled that the claimant was entitled to a significant reimbursement of court fees (60%), setting a clear precedent for cost recovery in voluntary withdrawals.
De heer v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
In this UPC case, the court addressed a claim of infringement related to Mandibular Advancement Devices (MAD). The claimant sought relief against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV regarding patents covering these medical devices. The court ultimately dismissed both the literal and equivalent infringement claims. This decision reinforces established principles regarding patent scope interpretation under Article 69 EPC, particularly emphasizing that functional equivalence is necessary for an equivalence finding.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a significant revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. successfully challenged and obtained the complete revocation of European patent EP 3 430 921 B1 against Juul Labs International, Inc. The UPC Central Division ruled that the patent was invalid across eight member states, including Germany and France. This decision underscores the effectiveness of the UPC in handling complex validity challenges related to vaping technology patents. It serves as a strong precedent for patentees seeking to challenge the scope or validity of granted European patents within the unified system.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Commuincation Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
In this UPC decision, NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its patent infringement action against several TCL entities before a final judgment was rendered. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling confirmed that even upon voluntary withdrawal, specific rules apply regarding court fee reimbursement, granting NEC 60% of the fees paid.