European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 43 of 84 · 2,007 total
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, brought by Fujifilm Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order, issued in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 11-13 February 2025, sets out preliminary views and questions on key issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law (UPCA versus national law), the value of the dispute, priority and prior use rights, the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and infringement by the SONORA XTRA-3 product.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V., proprietor of European patent EP 4 171 996 B1 concerning a modular trailer system with jack cradles, filed an ex parte application for preserving evidence against P.T.S. Machinery B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. Mammoet alleged that PTS, which had been commissioned in November 2020 to build jack cradles based on confidential drawings, was indirectly infringing the patent by producing and supplying a 'Mechanical Construction' matching the claimed invention. The court granted the application, ordering measures including physical seizure of documentation, access to PTS' premises, appointment of a bailiff and expert, and penalty payments for non-compliance.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned the service of a decision by default in provisional measures proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention as the Chinese authority failed to process service for over six months. The court held that publication of the decision by default on the Court's website, with notification to the defendant by email, constitutes good service under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Unnamed Applicant (Member of the Public) v.Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited (UPC_CFI_380/2023)
An unnamed member of the public, represented by Erik Krahbichler, applied for access to all written pleadings and evidence in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_380/2023) between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril et al. concerning EP 3 769 722. After the parties objected and Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited requested reimbursement of EUR 17,168.70 in legal costs, the Applicant withdrew the applications. The judge-rapporteur closed the proceedings on the access applications and dismissed the requests for reimbursement of legal costs, holding that Article 69 UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering a member of the public to reimburse costs incurred by parties consulted under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH & Others
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for rectification under Rule 353 RoP filed in connection with infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., sought rectification of a prior order concerning the protection of confidential information. The court dismissed the application, finding no obvious slip or clerical mistake, as the unredacted version of the order correctly contained the name of a natural person of Defendant 7 (PowerDeal SRL) to whom access was granted, while only the redacted version had that name replaced with '[…]'.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned the service of a decision by default in provisional measures proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Chinese authorities under the Hague Service Convention, which failed to process service for over six months. The court held that publication of the decision by default on the Court's website, with notification to the defendant by email, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
A revocation action before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 626 092 B1, which relates to vaporizer/electronic cigarette devices. The claimant argued the patent lacked inventive step based on prior art references 'Pan' and 'Cross'. The court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as granted, finding the claimant's arguments regarding lack of inventive step were not well founded.
XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l. v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3742231 filed a procedural application requesting that the language of the proceedings be changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, consented to the requested change and agreed that no translations of previously submitted pleadings were required. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the language of proceedings changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja sought, and Dyson agreed to, either a suspension of the cost assessment proceedings or alternatively an extension of the deadline to file a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction and ordering Dyson to pay SharkNinja's costs. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests as inadmissible, holding that the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP to file a cost assessment application begins with service of the substantive decision in the main proceedings, not with service of an order on interim measures.
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. and Amazon EU S.à r.l. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Amazon's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidential treatment of certain information in its appeal brief. The Court of Appeal rejected Amazon's application, holding that the information sought to be protected was already covered by an existing protective order issued by the Local Division Munich on December 19, 2024, which continued to apply during the appeal proceedings. The Court further found that Amazon's application was insufficiently specific regarding any information not already covered by the existing protective order.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. & Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims and requested the court to close the proceedings without a costs decision. Applying Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure, the court declared the proceedings closed.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently applied to withdraw their respective claims, with each consenting to the other's withdrawal. The Court of First Instance declared the proceedings closed without issuing a cost decision.
N.J Diffusion SARL v.Gisela Mayer GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2404516. The claimant, N.J Diffusion SARL, sought an in-person case management conference to physically examine two wigs deposited with the registry and take detailed photographs of their connection zones. The judge-rapporteur declared the request admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding the requested evidentiary measure unnecessary since enlarged photographs of the wigs were already in the rejoinder brief, and ordered the case management conference to proceed online.
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l., Amazon EU S.à r.l. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Amazon's request under Rule 262.2 RoP to classify certain information as confidential in its appeal against a Munich Local Division order. The court granted the request to classify specific information as confidential and exclude it from third-party file access, provisionally ordered the parties and their representatives to maintain confidentiality, and set a potential penalty of up to €250,000 per violation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently applied to withdraw their respective claims, with each consenting to the other's withdrawal. The Court of First Instance declared the proceedings closed without issuing a cost decision.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. Before a final decision was issued, the parties reached a contractual settlement and NEC declared withdrawal of the action. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by NEC.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 430 921 B1, owned by Juul Labs International, Inc. and directed to vaporization device systems. The Court revoked the patent entirely with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, and ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714 before the Local Division Munich. Before the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached a contractual agreement, and NEC declared withdrawal of the action. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by NEC.
Sanofi Mature IP & Others v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. & Others (UPC_CFI_145/2024 and related cases)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning four related patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants, a group of Sanofi entities, sought substitution of Sanofi Mature IP by Sanofi SA following a corporate reorganization in which Sanofi Mature IP was dissolved without liquidation and its assets, including the patent in suit, were universally transferred to Sanofi SA. The defendants raised no objections at the preliminary interim conference, and the Court granted the substitution, holding that it had no consequence on the proceedings under Rules 306 and 310 RoP.
Individual Plaintiff v.OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV
The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court rejected an infringement action brought by the holder of European patent EP 2 *** (relating to mandibular advancement devices for treating obstructive sleep apnea) against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV. The court found neither literal infringement nor infringement by equivalence, as functional equivalence was lacking. The court confirmed the plaintiff had timely filed the main proceedings after obtaining evidence preservation, but lifted the preservation order and ordered the return of seized goods, with the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg concerns the bifurcation of infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant Daedalus Prime LLC and Defendants Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH all favored referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division Paris. The court referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division Paris while continuing with the infringement action, scheduling the oral hearing not before early summer 2025.
NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG
NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patents at issue (EP3743812 and EP2628080) were granted. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, finding that while English is the common language in the relevant field of computer technology, the balancing of interests favored maintaining German as the language of proceedings. The Court emphasized that three of the four parties are domiciled in Germany, the Claimants are medium-sized enterprises, and ensuring fair access to justice for such enterprises is an important objective of the UPCA.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
Bhagat Textile Engineers appealed a decision of the Milan Local Division finding it had infringed Oerlikon's EP 2 145 848 patent and filed a separate application under Rule 223 RoP seeking suspensive effect of the appeal. Bhagat argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to parallel revocation proceedings involving a third party (Himson Engineering) and considerable doubts about the patent's validity. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that Bhagat had failed to evidence any exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court overturned a decision by the Local Division Hamburg which had held that the UPC lacked jurisdiction to quantify damages following a final national infringement judgment. The court ruled that the UPC has jurisdiction for a standalone claim for determination of damages after a national court has established patent infringement and the infringer's obligation to pay damages, and that this jurisdiction extends to infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the European patent was still in force at that time.