European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 43 of 67 · 1,592 total
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
This decision addresses the procedural competence regarding the withdrawal of a cost determination application in an ongoing UPC case. Although the main infringement and revocation proceedings have moved to the Appeal Court, the specific procedure for determining costs remains under the jurisdiction of the court of first instance's Rapporteur. The court confirmed its original authority to grant the request to withdraw the cost claim, thereby closing that phase of the litigation.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC decision addressed an infringement claim concerning color-and-light mixing optics used in outdoor display boards. The court granted the injunction, compelling the respondent to remove the infringing products from distribution or arrange their destruction. However, the plaintiff's request for public disclosure of the ruling was rejected, emphasizing that such publication requires a strong interest that outweighs potential harm to the defendant. This case provides clear guidance on the scope of injunctive relief and the stringent requirements for court-ordered publicity in UPC proceedings.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional question: whether the Unified Patent Court can hear an independent claim for damages following a successful national infringement judgment. The court affirmed that since the damage claim is rooted in patent infringement, it falls under the scope of Article 32(1)(a) EPC. This ruling provides significant clarity and predictability for patentees seeking to enforce their rights across the UPC system.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Bhagat Textile Engineers against Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG. The core issue was whether exceptional circumstances existed to halt the enforcement of a prior infringement judgment and associated penalties. The court ruled against Bhagat, emphasizing that merely claiming parallel proceedings or 'considerable doubts' is insufficient. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC appeals.
BF exaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving NVIDIA and two German claimants (BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG). The defendants sought to change the court language from German to English, matching the patent grant language. However, the Court ultimately dismissed this request. The ruling emphasizes that while convenience for large corporations is a factor, the principle of ensuring fair access to justice for medium-sized enterprises must take precedence when weighing the interests of the parties.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Hamburg addressed complex bifurcation requests between an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP2792100. Recognizing the efficiency gains from consolidating validity arguments, the court referred the revocation counterclaim to the Central Division Paris. Crucially, the local division decided not to suspend or separate the ongoing infringement proceedings immediately, opting instead to continue them while awaiting the outcome of the parallel revocation action.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed both Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom (and affiliates) to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims regarding EP 4 087 195. The withdrawal was permitted because neither party demonstrated a legitimate interest in forcing the continuation of the litigation. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to terminate complex patent disputes by mutual consent, provided no vested interests are at stake.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Board of Appeal addressed requests to withdraw an infringement suit and associated revocation counterclaims. The Court ruled that such withdrawals are permissible during appellate proceedings as long as no final judgment has become legally binding. This decision provides clarity on the timing constraints for withdrawing claims under Rule 265 VerfO and confirms the procedural effect of withdrawal, including the refund of court fees.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by Alpinestars S.p.A. to extend its deadline for filing defenses and revocation counterclaims. The court emphasized that coordinating UPC proceedings with parallel EPO appeals can be achieved through flexible procedural measures, such as extensions, rather than resorting to a stay. This ruling reinforces the balance between judicial efficiency and ensuring all parties have full rights of defense in complex patent litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters concerning the withdrawal of a patent infringement claim and associated revocation counterclaims. The Court of Appeal confirmed that parties can withdraw their claims during the appellate phase, provided no final judgment has become legally binding. By allowing the withdrawal, the court terminated the main proceedings and granted Avago a refund of 60% of its appeal court fees. This ruling provides clarity on the timing and procedural requirements for withdrawing actions within the UPC system.
Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U.
This Procedural Order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses complex issues of confidentiality and evidence access across several parallel infringement actions involving Sanofi (Claimant) and Accord Healthcare (Respondent). The core dispute revolved around how a key witness statement (Exhibit No. D.4), containing sensitive commercial data, should be handled by the Court. The Judge issued detailed instructions to balance the need for full disclosure in litigation against the protection of trade secrets.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision involves a complex dispute over an avalanche rescue device (LVS) protected by EP 3 466 498 B1. The claimant sued the defendants for infringement while simultaneously challenging the patent's validity in Switzerland. The court issued detailed injunctions, establishing specific legal principles regarding indirect infringement when user activation is required and setting high standards for market removal measures like destruction. This case highlights the UPC's ability to handle combined actions of infringement and revocation.
Bentley Motors Limited v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Bentley Motors Limited sought to withdraw a revocation action against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399. The court granted the request, emphasizing that Rule 265(1) of the RoP does not mandate express consent from the respondent, provided they are given an opportunity to comment and do not object. This decision provides clarity on procedural requirements for withdrawing actions within the UPC framework.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding security for costs in an ongoing infringement action involving TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR and Texas Instruments. The claimant challenged the initial order, arguing that the judge-rapporteur lacked competence to issue such a binding case management order and simultaneously deny leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that since security for costs is a case management matter, only the full panel can decide on leave to appeal. Consequently, the original order was revoked, and the case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH initiated proceedings against Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH regarding infringement of its patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which covers specialized avalanche rescue transceivers (LVS). The Düsseldorf Local Chamber issued a detailed decision addressing both the infringement claims and the counterclaim for revocation. Key rulings clarified principles of indirect infringement when user activation is required and established stringent criteria for implementing product destruction or recall measures to ensure permanent cessation of infringement.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL (collectively 'Magna')
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, Valeo Electrification successfully withdrew its infringement action against Magna. The withdrawal was permitted because the main proceedings were still subject to a pending appeal and Magna provided explicit consent for the case to be closed. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to terminate litigation before a final judgment is rendered.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC decision concerns a procedural matter where Avago Technologies sought to withdraw its application for interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation regarding EP 1 770 912. The court granted the withdrawal, noting that since the initial order had not been served and the respondent was unaware of the proceedings, no active participation or hearing was required. This ruling underscores the procedural flexibility within the UPC when parties voluntarily terminate actions.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc.
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures (UPC_CFI_791/2024), Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd successfully withdrew its application after reaching an out-of-court settlement with Netgear Inc. and its affiliates. The Munich Local Division of the UPC granted the withdrawal, formally ending the interim relief proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can efficiently resolve complex patent disputes within the UPC framework, leading to the immediate release of security deposits.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL (and associated entities)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted Valeo Electrification to withdraw its infringement action against Magna. The withdrawal was facilitated by Magna's explicit consent and the absence of a final judgment in the underlying main proceedings due to an ongoing appeal. This decision highlights how parties can resolve complex litigation early through mutual agreement, even when provisional measures were previously granted.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This decision addresses the complex issue of managing a large number of auxiliary requests filed by Claimant 2 (Harvard College) in an application to amend a patent, while parallel opposition proceedings are ongoing at the EPO. The Court recognized that given the extensive validity attacks, limiting the amendments strictly is not feasible under the principle of fairness. Consequently, the proceedings were stayed pending the EPO's decision, and Harvard was instructed to consolidate its requests for submission shortly thereafter.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In the case of Valeo Electrification v. Magna PT entities, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Local Division formally closed proceedings after both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants subsequently withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This decision highlights the importance of party autonomy in UPC litigation, allowing cases to be terminated amicably even when complex patent disputes are involved.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH; Netgear Inc.; Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to withdraw its infringement claim against Netgear and simultaneously accepted the withdrawal of Netgear's counterclaim for revocation. This decision reflects a common strategic resolution in complex patent litigation, where parties opt to terminate proceedings rather than proceed to a full trial. The court formalized the termination while granting a partial refund of court fees.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to withdraw its infringement claim against Netgear and permitted Netgear to withdraw their revocation counterclaims regarding EP 3 611 989. The court confirmed that withdrawal was permissible because the prior decision had not yet attained legal force. This case highlights how parties can resolve complex UPC litigation through mutual agreement, leading to a procedural dismissal of the actions.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In a procedural decision concerning EP 3 320 604 B1, the UPC Local Division allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Valeo Electrification withdrew its patent infringement action against Magna entities, while the Defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and a license. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to the closure of complex IP litigation without a substantive ruling on validity or infringement.