European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 46 of 67 · 1,592 total
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, Rune Eilertsen, Infotech Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS
This UPC decision concerns the confirmation of an ex parte order for evidence preservation related to EP 4 238 202 B1 (hybrid generators). The court reviewed whether the initial measure should be upheld or revoked, particularly after procedural delays. By confirming the original order, the court affirmed that the applicant provided adequate justification and material to warrant the scope of the provisional measures.
Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural issues arising from an appeal challenging provisional measures against Sumi Agro Limited. The core dispute involved the alleged infringement by Syngenta using different versions of a product named 'Kagura' (2023 vs 2024). The court ultimately allowed Syngenta to introduce new evidence detailing the characteristics and purchase of the 2024 product, finding that the late submission was justified. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in allowing relevant factual developments during appeal proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This UPC decision between Huawei and Netgear addresses critical intersections of patent law, antitrust compliance (FRAND), and exhaustion principles in the telecommunications sector. The court ruled that a patent holder's obligation to offer FRAND terms is complex; making multiple acceptable offers can prevent an infringement suit from being dismissed on cartel grounds. While the core lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, specific claims were granted with an injunction, highlighting the nuanced application of these legal doctrines.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH, and Belkin Limited
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 2 867 997 B1), Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a disclosure order against Belkin International and its subsidiaries. After the defendants failed to provide complete, organized information in an electronic format as required by the initial judgment, the court imposed a substantial Zwangsgeld (coercive fine). The ruling serves as a strong warning that non-compliance with judicial orders for evidence or information can lead to significant financial penalties under UPC rules.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In this revocation action, Tandem Diabetes Care challenged the validity of a patent covering an ambulatory drug infusion system held by Roche. The claimants argued that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step based on various prior art documents. However, the UPC Central Division dismissed the revocation action, ruling that the combination of cited prior art was insufficient to invalidate the patent. This decision reinforces the high bar required for challenging established patents in the UPC.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V.
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a preliminary objection raised by Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. against Visibly Inc.'s infringement claim concerning patent EP3918974. The defendants argued that claims based on director liability or tort were outside the UPC's competence. The Court rejected this argument, confirming that jurisdiction extends to such claims under Article 7(2) of Brussels I recast and establishing competence via Article 33(1)(a) UPCA due to the service being offered in Germany. This ruling clears the path for the main infringement proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This UPC decision between Huawei and Netgear addresses critical intersections of patent law, antitrust regulations (FRAND), and SEP licensing. The court ruled on the validity of exhaustion defenses and clarified that a patent holder's obligation under cartel law is met if they provide multiple FRAND-compliant options, such as pool licenses. While the infringement claim was partially granted with an injunction, the overall lawsuit was dismissed, highlighting the nuanced balance between IP rights enforcement and competition law compliance in the UPC.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (unnamed)
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of service of process in a UPC infringement action. The court ruled that despite initial difficulties and subsequent refusal by the Defendant to accept documents, Amycel's alternative methods of delivery qualified as 'good service.' This ruling establishes a clear precedent for how parties can successfully effect service when standard procedures fail, provided efficiency and fairness are maintained.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application by Curio Bioscience to grant suspensive effect to a prior Court of First Instance order requiring them to provide security for legal costs. The court ruled against Curio, emphasizing that the burden lies squarely on the applicant to prove 'extreme urgency' under Rule 223 RoP. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements for obtaining temporary relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when challenging interim measures.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In this UPC decision concerning a revocation action, the Court addressed a request by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited to release a security deposit imposed for legal costs. Despite arguing that its financial situation had improved through acquisition by Bruker Corporation and the reversal of an injunction, the Claimant's request was rejected. The court held that as long as the initial decision is subject to appeal, the Defendant's interest in protecting potential cost recovery remains valid, regardless of the Claimant's corporate structure or solvency claims.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case Oerlikon v Himson addresses key strategic issues in a complex infringement and revocation action concerning textile machinery. The Court confirmed that both parties' claims are narrowly focused on Claim 1, reinforcing the 'front loaded' principle of the UPC system. Furthermore, the court managed evidentiary disputes, allowing for video evidence while restricting late-stage document submissions to maintain procedural efficiency. This decision sets a clear path forward toward an oral hearing in mid-2025.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC decision concerns the mutual withdrawal of an infringement action by ICPillar LLC and a corresponding revocation counterclaim filed by ARM entities regarding patent EP3000239. The parties agreed to settle their dispute outside the UPC, leading to the closure of the proceedings. While both withdrawals were permitted, the Court adjusted the court fee reimbursement rate from 60% to 40%, citing the advanced stage of the litigation and the work already performed by the Court.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request by Valeo Electrification to extend filing deadlines in an infringement and revocation action against Magna. The Court rejected the extension request, confirming that statutory time limits are sufficient unless exceptional circumstances are proven. This decision reinforces the strict adherence to procedural timelines within the UPC framework.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application to revoke provisional measures based on alleged procedural deadlines. The Applicant argued that because court fees were not received by the Court before a specific deadline, the proceedings had not properly started. However, the Court rejected this argument, clarifying the precise wording of the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The ruling emphasizes that 'paid' is sufficient under Rule 15(2) RoP for lodging, and merely filing in the CMS satisfies the requirement to 'start' proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This procedural order addressed Microsoft Corporation's request for leave to appeal a prior decision concerning claim amendments and damages reduction in an infringement action. The Court of First Instance ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing that granting such leave requires demonstrating either differing interpretations among UPC judges or a concrete interest served by the appeal. This ruling reinforces the principle of efficiency within the UPC proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by multiple defendants to stay infringement proceedings pending decisions from the EPO Opposition Division. Despite an accelerated opposition hearing being scheduled at the EPO, the Court ruled against rescheduling its own oral hearing. The decision emphasizes the need for the UPC to maintain its timeline while acknowledging the parallel proceedings, setting the stage for the main merits hearing.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
This appeal before the UPC Court of Appeal concerned an application for suspensive effect regarding a preliminary injunction issued by the CFI against Magna. The core dispute centered on whether a specific BMW model, the 2 Series Gran Coupé, was correctly exempted from the injunction's scope. The Court of Appeal sided with Magna, finding that the exclusion was arbitrary and disproportionate given the evidence of production plans for this vehicle. Consequently, the court suspended the effect of the injunction specifically for the 2 Series Gran Coupé model.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This UPC case involved a procedural application by Scandit AG requesting the court to mandate simultaneous interpretation for its upcoming oral hearing, switching from German to English. The Berichterstatter ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that since Scandit had filed its initial pleadings in German, it bore the responsibility of managing language requirements. Practitioners should note that courts are reluctant to impose mandatory translation services if a party has already chosen or could have chosen the procedural language.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finland Oy, HP Italy S.r.l., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD
In a procedural ruling concerning the dispute over EP 3 490 258 B1, Dolby International AB withdrew its infringement claim against various HP entities. Concurrently, the defendants successfully had their counterclaim for revocation withdrawn. The court formally terminated both proceedings based on the mutual agreement of the parties. This case highlights how strategic settlement and procedural agreements can lead to the early termination of complex UPC litigation.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diagnostics GmbH et al. (multiple entities)
In a significant ruling, the UPC Paris Local Division revoked European patent EP3831282, which covered remote monitoring systems for diabetes management. The decision dismissed all infringement claims brought by DexCom against Abbott's FreeStyle Libre 3 products and associated applications (LibreLinkUp). Beyond the substantive finding of invalidity, the court reinforced procedural strictness, rejecting late-stage attempts to introduce new grounds for revocation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc.
Huawei sought a provisional measure (Anti-Suit/Anti-Enforcement Injunction) against Netgear, arguing that Netgear's US antitrust lawsuit threatened its European patent rights related to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei contended that such an injunction would constitute an unlawful interference with its property rights in Germany. Although the court recognized the potential illegality of such a measure under German law, it ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This UPC decision is a procedural ruling concerning the correct service date of infringement claims filed against a Swiss defendant. The court clarified that because Switzerland falls outside the EU, standard fictional rules for deemed service do not apply, meaning the actual delivery date must be recognized. This highlights the importance of correctly applying jurisdictional and procedural rules when serving documents across international borders in UPC proceedings.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
This UPC Order addressed procedural matters in a complex infringement and revocation case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril Life Sciences. The Court confirmed the case value and maintained the scheduled oral hearing date despite concurrent proceedings at the EPO Opposition Division. Crucially, the court ruled to exclude late-filed attacks on inventive step that were not part of the initial claims or defenses, reinforcing principles of procedural fairness in UPC litigation.
NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the critical interplay between preliminary injunctions, their subsequent revocation, and the enforceability of associated penalty orders (Zwangsgelder). The court established that because initial injunctions are generally retroactive, overturning them eliminates the legal foundation for any coercive fine order. This ruling provides significant clarity on risk management for patentees relying on provisional measures in UPC proceedings.