European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 44 of 67 · 1,592 total
Netgear Deutschland GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
In this UPC case, Netgear Deutschland GmbH and its affiliates successfully withdrew their infringement action against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The withdrawal was based on an agreement between the parties, leading to the termination of the proceedings. Although the core dispute was settled out of court, the claimant secured a partial refund of 40% of the paid court fees from the UPC.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a cost determination proceeding initiated by Edwards Lifesciences against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. While the court found that the respondents were liable for the procedural costs totaling EUR 244,000 (including amounts agreed upon in earlier proceedings), it definitively rejected the claimant's request to have these costs paid with interest. The ruling clarifies a critical distinction within UPC procedure: while damages claims may include compensation for time value of money, standard cost reimbursement does not automatically carry an interest component unless explicitly provided by law.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application filed by ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking to overturn a default judgment in a revocation action against Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft. The core issue was whether the claimant provided sufficient justification for missing critical deadlines. The Court ruled that merely explaining the delay is insufficient; the applicant must prove the failure was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure, thereby reinforcing strict procedural compliance within the UPC system.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope of public access to court documents, specifically addressing whether pending appeals or parallel proceedings justify withholding evidence from the public register. The Court ruled that once the CFI has rendered a decision, the general interest in public access prevails, even if the initial order concerned provisional measures. This ruling significantly lowers the threshold for transparency in UPC litigation, reinforcing the principle of open justice.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
In a decision by default, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a preliminary injunction in favor of air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. The case concerned infringement of EP 3 897 305, which protects an innovative drinking device designed for retronasal aroma reception. Since the defendant failed to respond to the application, the court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering a cease and desist across all UPC Member States.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for an extension of time, rather than the merits of the underlying patent dispute. Menarini sought an extension to file its statement of response due to technical difficulties with the Case Management System (CMS). The Court dismissed the request, clarifying that automatic extensions under R.301.2 RoP apply when electronic filing is temporarily impossible, making a discretionary order superfluous.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request by Menarini to re-establish confidentiality protections for technical information during the appeal phase. The court found that these requests were redundant because the original CFI order already mandated continuous protection and restricted access to specific parties. While the formal R. 262A RoP requests were dismissed, the Court confirmed that the existing restrictions on accessing confidential documents would remain in force.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
In a significant decision by default, the UPC Local Division Munich granted an injunction in favor of air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. The case involved patent EP 3 655 341, which covers a specialized drinking device designed for retronasal aroma reception. Since the defendant failed to respond to the service of the application, the court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering an immediate cease-and-desist order across all UPC Member States.
ArcelorMittal v.Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA, XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl, E-LAIN SAS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by multiple XPENG-related entities and others to change the language of an infringement case from French (or German) to English. The court granted this application, citing fairness and convenience, noting that English was the patent's granting language and widely used among the parties. Crucially, the Claimant, ArcelorMittal, was ordered to provide translations of its Statement of Claim at its own expense. This decision sets a practical precedent regarding procedural efficiency in multinational UPC cases.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an appeal. DISH and Sling sought full reimbursement due to alleged errors in procedural instructions, but the Court ultimately granted only partial relief. The ruling confirms that even when appealing, parties are entitled to 60% fee reimbursement upon withdrawal, provided they meet the formal requirements under the Rules of Procedure.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for intervention by MediaTek, the manufacturer of the processors at issue (Dimensity). The appeal concerned a procedural dispute over access to confidential information regarding processor architecture. The court found that MediaTek possessed a direct and present legal interest in protecting this proprietary information, despite Xiaomi being the party who initially submitted it. This ruling reinforces the rights of technology owners to participate in confidentiality disputes related to their core intellectual property within UPC proceedings.
Meril Italy srl v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application for cost allocation in the context of public access to the register. The applicants sought reimbursement of costs incurred during a prior proceeding regarding their request for access. The Court ruled that because the underlying proceedings were administrative, aimed at enhancing judicial transparency rather than resolving private rights disputes, they did not constitute a 'decision on the merits'. Consequently, the application for cost recovery was dismissed.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC decision concerns the withdrawal of a counterclaim for invalidity filed by Tesla against Avago Technologies regarding EP 1 770 912. The court granted the request to withdraw, finding that since the action had not reached a final judgment and no legitimate interest was asserted by the claimant, the withdrawal was permissible under UPC Rules. Consequently, the entire proceeding was terminated.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories (and associated entities)
This UPC decision in Düsseldorf concerns the mutual withdrawal of a patent infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against various Abbott entities, alongside a corresponding counterclaim for revocation. The parties agreed to terminate all proceedings, including the application to amend the patent in suit. While the core dispute was resolved through consent, the court issued specific orders regarding the reimbursement of court fees, setting the value in dispute at EUR 4 million each.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a case involving Avago Technologies against Tesla, the claimant voluntarily withdrew its infringement lawsuit concerning EP 1 770 912. The Munich Local Division of the UPC granted this request, terminating the proceedings without prejudice to future actions. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework regarding claim withdrawal when no party has a vested interest in the outcome.
Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U.
In a key procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a complex corporate restructuring involving Sanofi. The court formally approved the substitution of Sanofi-Aventis France with its successor entity, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, in multiple ongoing infringement actions. This decision validates the principle that rights and obligations transfer seamlessly through mergers under UPC rules. It allows the substantive patent litigation to proceed without interruption despite significant changes in the claimant's corporate structure.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Limited initiated an infringement action against SharkNinja Europe and Germany concerning EP patent 2 043 492. In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Munich granted a suspension of both the main infringement proceedings and the associated counterclaim. This decision reflects a strategic pause agreed upon by both parties, allowing time for further negotiation or legal strategy before the merits of the case are addressed.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This order addressed a request by Berggren Oy, acting as a UPC representative firm, to access the full documentation of a concluded Revocation action (UPC 252/2023). The Court affirmed that once proceedings have ended, there is a general public interest in transparency and scrutiny. Consequently, the Court granted access to all written pleadings and evidence, subject only to standard redactions of personal data.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd has initiated an infringement lawsuit against Netgear International Limited and its affiliates concerning European Patent EP 3 678 321. Crucially, the court has consolidated this infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation, meaning both sides will argue simultaneously on whether the patent is valid and if it is being infringed. This procedural consolidation sets the stage for a comprehensive trial in Munich.
Insulet Corporation v.Eoflow Co Ltd
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application for costs following the dismissal of an intervention request. Insulet Corporation attempted to recover legal costs from Eoflow Co Ltd after its intervention was rejected in a parallel provisional measures proceeding concerning the patch-insulin pump EP4201327. The Court dismissed the cost claim, ruling that the initial order refusing intervention did not constitute a principle decision on costs and that Eoflow could not be treated as an 'unsuccessful party' at that stage.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
This UPC decision is a procedural order in an ongoing infringement and revocation case between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Netgear entities concerning EP patent No. 3 678 321. The court addressed the resignation of one of the technically qualified judges assigned to the panel. Consequently, the court mandated the reassignment of a new judge to maintain the integrity and continuity of the proceedings.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, the Rapporteur addressed a motion by Xiaomi entities seeking to summarily dismiss the claimant's request for amending the patent claims. The court emphasized the principle of procedural economy, holding that complex substantive issues concerning the validity and scope of patent amendments should not be decided prematurely. Instead, these matters are reserved for the main proceedings, ensuring a comprehensive review by the full judicial panel.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural application concerning security for costs, the UPC Central Division dismissed Microsoft Corporation's request to increase the required financial guarantee against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. Although Microsoft argued that increased litigation complexity and the respondent's admitted financial strain warranted higher security, the Court found no new circumstances justifying an amendment. This decision reinforces the principle that initial assessments of recoverable costs, based on the claimant's objective interest at filing, remain relevant even as proceedings progress.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a request for security of legal costs concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled in favor of the Defendants (Apple group). The court found that due to the Claimant's limited financial disclosure and minimal share capital, there was a legitimate concern regarding the recoverability of potential cost orders. Consequently, the Claimant was ordered to provide security amounting to EUR 500,000.