European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 45 of 67 · 1,592 total
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case UPC_CFI_152/2024 involves Netgear (claimant) and Huawei (respondent). The court addressed two key procedural matters: incorporating a relevant Qualcomm license agreement from a prior infringement case into the current non-infringement determination, and assigning an expert judge. The decision emphasizes judicial efficiency by linking proceedings and utilizing specialized expertise to handle complex cross-case issues.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a request for security of legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled against Ona Patents SL. The court found that despite the Claimant's arguments regarding its solvency, it failed to provide sufficient financial evidence to convince the court. Consequently, the court ordered Ona Patents SL to deposit EUR 500,000 as security for the Defendants' potential legal costs. This decision highlights the stringent requirements placed on NPEs seeking enforcement in UPC proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In this UPC decision concerning an infringement action, the Court addressed a request by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to reduce its security for costs from EUR 300,000 to EUR 100,000. The Court ultimately denied the reduction request. A key finding was that the determination of the value of proceedings—which dictates the security amount—must be based on the objective interest at the time the action was filed, making subsequent changes in claimed damages irrelevant for this purpose.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the translation requirement for evidence in appeal proceedings. Syngenta requested that a specific document, Exhibit FF25, not be translated into English. The court reviewed the relevant Rules of Procedure (RoP) and ultimately granted the request. The ruling clarifies the discretionary power of the Court of Appeal regarding language requirements when parties submit documents during appellate stages.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH
In a significant decision for the medical device sector, the UPC Central Division rejected revocation actions against EP 4 074 373. The patent, which covers MRI-safe magnetic elements in implantable devices, was ultimately maintained, albeit in an amended form (Auxiliary Request 0a). This ruling underscores the importance of successful amendment strategies when facing validity challenges before the UPC.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Court Munich accepted the mutual agreement by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and Xiaomi Inc. to withdraw all pending infringement claims and counterclaims related to three European patents. This decision effectively terminated the complex litigation proceedings without a final judgment on patent validity or infringement. The court also confirmed the parties' right to receive a partial refund of their court fees, reflecting the procedural nature of the settlement.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
In this procedural order from the Munich Local Division, the court granted a short extension of deadlines requested by the claimant's counsel due to documented health issues. The case involves both infringement and invalidity proceedings concerning EP 3 030 471. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to grant extensions when credible medical reasons are presented, while also imposing strict conditions for proving those claims.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses a procedural motion for an extension of deadlines in ongoing infringement and invalidity proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024; UPC_CFI_609/2024). The claimant, Snowpixie Co., Ltd., requested additional time due to the temporary health issues of its legal counsel. The court granted this extension until December 27, 2024, provided the counsel can further substantiate their condition on the original deadline date. This highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines when genuine hardship is demonstrated.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
TIRU successfully obtained provisional measures (evidence preservation and on-site inspection) against VALINEA ENERGIE regarding alleged infringement of EP3178578. The court recognized its jurisdiction and found that TIRU adequately demonstrated the necessity and scope of the evidence required to prove potential counterfeiting of a waste incinerator technology. This decision is crucial for patent holders needing immediate access to technical documentation before formal litigation begins.
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 addresses a request for protection of confidential information during an infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 065 184 B1. The Court accepted the defendants' requests to keep specific financial data—related to revenue, profit, and sales figures—confidential as trade secrets. This decision reinforces the practical application of confidentiality rules within UPC proceedings, allowing for protection even when strict procedural timing requirements are not met.
Insulet Corporation v.MENARINI DIAGNOSTICS s.r.l.
This UPC decision addresses a complex costs dispute arising from an intervention request in parallel provisional measures proceedings. Insulet Corporation sought reimbursement for legal costs incurred while defending against Menarini Diagnostics' attempt to intervene in the main infringement case. The Court upheld Insulet's claim, establishing that even parties not formally named can be subject to cost awards if they are deemed 'successful.' This ruling clarifies the scope of recoverable costs related to intervention proceedings under the UPC Rules of Procedure.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a case concerning an infringement action, Microsoft challenged the Court of First Instance's decision that allowed Suinno to reduce its claimed damages. Microsoft argued this change compromised its defense and exceeded procedural limits. However, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Microsoft’s discretionary review request, affirming that allowing a party to unconditionally limit their claim is a standard procedure under the Rules of Procedure (R 263.3 RoP). This decision reinforces the flexibility and fairness built into the UPC's litigation framework regarding claim amendments.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural ruling concerning the protection of confidential information, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Microsoft's request to keep certain details within Exhibit BP 01 private. This decision reinforces the court's ability to manage sensitive commercial data during litigation. The ruling clarifies the distinction between confidentiality for parties involved in the dispute and restrictions against public disclosure.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural matter following the initial invalidation of EP 1 838 002. The court allowed Avago Technologies to withdraw its cost determination application, effectively ending that specific proceeding. Crucially, the ruling established that in this context, each party must bear their own costs, providing clarity on cost allocation after a patent's revocation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, Panasonic Holdings Corporation successfully withdrew its infringement actions against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by all parties after the written proceedings were concluded. While the core dispute over patent infringement is resolved through termination, the court provided procedural clarity regarding cost allocation and partial refunds of court fees.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
TIRU successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC Local Division of Paris to investigate alleged infringement by MAGUIN SAS regarding a waste incineration patent (EP3178578). The court authorized physical seizure of documents, digital data preservation, and site inspections at VALINEA ENERGIE's facilities. This decision is crucial for TIRU as it allows them to gather necessary evidence before initiating the main infringement proceedings under the UPC.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This UPC Procedural Order addressed the critical issue of protecting confidential information within a complex infringement and revocation action involving major solar energy players. The Court carefully balanced the need for trade secret protection against the public nature of some submitted data. While granting confidentiality to protect sensitive financial metrics, the court denied requests to shield technical details already disclosed in parallel national proceedings, setting important boundaries for disclosure in UPC litigation.
Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC decision addressed an application for access to court files filed by Harting Electric Stiftung & Co. KG (the applicant) in a case involving infringement and opposition proceedings related to EP 3 602 692. The core dispute was whether the applicant, who is also involved in national litigation concerning derivative utility models, had a right to review evidence from the main UPC infringement suit. The court ultimately granted access, establishing that parties in ongoing opposition proceedings have a legitimate interest in reviewing relevant case materials for proper defense and representation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the timing of patent amendments during infringement proceedings. The court examined an application by President and Fellows of Harvard College to amend its patent based on developments in parallel EPO opposition proceedings. While the initial amendment request was rejected, the court allowed an appeal because the question of when subsequent amendments can be filed under Rule 30.2 VerfO has broad significance for UPC practice. This case highlights the strict procedural requirements governing changes to patent claims mid-litigation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order in the Edwards Lifesciences v Meril case focused on managing the complex infringement and revocation proceedings. Key issues included the claimant's request to amend its claims (e.g., including Romania) and the defendants' requests for a court expert. The Court set deadlines for parties to provide technical evidence, cost estimates, and clarified procedural steps moving toward the oral hearing.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for provisional measures concerning a C5-binding antibody patent. The core issue revolved around claim interpretation, specifically whether a sequence ID number included extra amino acids as interpreted by the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA). The court ultimately found that this interpretation led to insufficient disclosure under Art. 83 EPC because the resulting claimed molecule was not functional as intended for drug use. Alexion's appeal was rejected, reinforcing strict standards regarding claim scope and enablement in biotech patents.
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v.pharma-aktiva GmbH
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG successfully obtained provisional measures against multiple defendants, including pharma-aktiva GmbH and various Aldi/Hofer group entities, regarding the alleged infringement of EP 1 993 363 B1. The patent covers a specific composition used to combat ectoparasites. The court issued an immediate injunction prohibiting the manufacture and sale of the infringing product in Germany and Austria, alongside imposing significant penalty payments (Zwangsgeld). This decision highlights the broad reach of UPC provisional measures against large retail groups.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company et al.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for provisional measures concerning a monoclonal antibody used to treat rare diseases like PNH. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation and validity of the patent claims, specifically regarding amino acid sequences. The court ruled that the claim was insufficiently disclosed because the full sequence did not possess the claimed therapeutic activity, leading to the rejection of Alexion's appeal.
LAMA FRANCE v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P
This UPC decision addressed procedural requests following a substantive judgment, specifically concerning the stay of execution and confidentiality during information exchange. The court firmly rejected LAMA France's request to suspend the enforcement of the prior decision, citing lack of jurisdiction under current rules. However, it validated the need for a restricted confidential circle (club de confidentialité) to protect trade secrets related to financial data exchanged between the parties.