European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 47 of 84 · 2,007 total
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V.
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court addressed a preliminary objection filed by Defendants Yves Prevoo (managing director) and Easee Holding B.V. (parent company), who argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over claims based on personal/director liability and tort. The court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that alleged patent infringement constitutes a matter of tort under Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, giving the UPC jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and that questions of director liability are matters of merit rather than jurisdiction.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH, and Belkin Limited
This case concerns an application by Koninklijke Philips N.V. for the imposition of a coercive fine (Zwangsgeld) against the Belkin entities for non-compliance with an information order (Auskunft) issued in a main infringement decision dated September 13, 2024, regarding EP 2 867 997 B1. The Local Chamber Munich held that while the defendants were not required to provide the information in electronic form (since this was not specifically requested), they had provided incomplete information. A total coercive fine of €46,000 was imposed, and appeal was admitted.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action by Amycel LLC (proprietor of EP1993350) against an unnamed defendant located in Poland. The court addressed Amycel's application regarding the service of the Statement of Claim on the defendant, who had refused to accept delivery through multiple channels. The court ruled that the alternative methods of service employed by Amycel constituted good service under R. 275.2 RoP, deemed the Statement of Claim served on 25 November 2024, and set a three-month period for the defendant to file a Statement of Defense.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
Infringement action by Huawei against Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989 relating to HE-SIG-B signaling in wireless local area networks. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed multiple defenses including exhaustion, FRAND, and IEEE LOA-based arguments, ultimately finding partial infringement and ordering injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and damages, while splitting costs 80/20 in favor of the defendants on the infringement claim.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 794 928 B1, the Claimant (NanoString Technologies Europe Limited) sought release of a EUR 300,000 security for legal costs previously ordered under Rule 158 RoP. The Claimant argued it was now solvent following its acquisition by Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and that the first instance decision in its favor (patent revoked) eliminated any potential cost liability. The Court rejected the request, holding that the Claimant failed to provide information about its own independent financial position and that the first instance decision was not final as it remained subject to appeal.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Curio Bioscience filed an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP seeking to stay an order from the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide EUR 200,000 in security for legal costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Curio had not established the extreme urgency required under Rule 223.4 RoP, as it had merely claimed it would be forced to comply with a manifestly wrong order or face a default judgment.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
Procedural Order
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited & Others
ICPillar LLC filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP3000239 against multiple ARM entities, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. Following a confidential mediation in the parallel US litigation and a settlement agreement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims. The Court permitted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, ordered full reimbursement of the security for costs, but reduced the court fee reimbursement from 60% to 40% due to the late stage of proceedings and substantial work already undertaken by the Court.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) requested an extension of time limits for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court harmonised the time limits and set the deadline at 14 January 2025, but rejected the request for any further extension beyond the statutory period.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation sought leave to appeal an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) that had granted the respondent, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, leave to reduce its damages claim to €2 million in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Microsoft argued that leave to appeal would clarify the scope and limits of the Court's powers in interpreting a party's request under Article 76(1) UPCA and the admissible scope of a Rule 263 RoP application. The panel rejected the request, finding that the issue raised was not the subject of different interpretations by UPC judges and would not affect the final decision on the merits.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited sought to revoke a preliminary measures order (ORD 47657/2024) against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited, arguing that the underlying main proceedings on the merits were not timely started within the non-extendable deadlines under Rule 213.1 RoP. The Local Division Munich dismissed the application, holding that the proceedings were validly started when the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024, and that Rule 15(2) RoP does not require court fees to have been physically received by the Court before the deadline expires.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning the correct date of service of a patent infringement claim. The court determined that the statement of claim filed on November 6, 2024, regarding EP 3 764 271, was served on the defendant in Switzerland on November 20, 2024, rather than the November 23, 2024 date automatically recorded by the Case Management System.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against several Meril entities and related companies regarding EP3769722. The Defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the European Patent Office Opposition Division's decision on the patent's validity. After the Court of Appeal set aside an earlier order dismissing the stay request, the Court of First Instance again dismissed the stay request and decided to proceed with the oral hearing as planned on 16 January 2025.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna against a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had exempted Magna's supply obligations for five BMW models but omitted the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé (F74) from the exemption list. The Court of Appeal found that Magna had clearly identified the 2 Series Gran Coupé in its submissions and that the CFI should have included it in the exemption, ordering the injunction's effect suspended as to that model until the appeal is decided.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 866 051. Hand Held Products requested simultaneous interpretation from German to English for an oral hearing scheduled for January 9, 2025. The Court rejected both the main request for court-ordered interpretation and the alternative request for interpretation at the applicant's cost, but noted that Hand Held Products could privately arrange interpretation at its own expense under Rule 109.4.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Dolby International AB against 15 HP entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the HP defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its action and the HP defendants to withdraw their counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed both withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees to both parties.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu, Inc., Abbott B.V., Abbott, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott France, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Oy
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division against multiple Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc. concerning European Patent EP 3 831 282 B1, which relates to remote monitoring of analyte measurements, particularly glucose levels in diabetes patients. Abbott filed a counterclaim for revocation, and DexCom submitted auxiliary requests to amend the patent. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding it invalid as granted and as amended under all auxiliary requests due to added-matter objections under Article 138(1)(c) EPC, and dismissed all of DexCom's infringement claims.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, Netgear Deutschland GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, SMIS International OÜ, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB, VAB-Logistik UAB
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3769722. The order addresses multiple case management issues raised during an interim conference, including the value of the case, scheduling relative to parallel EPO opposition proceedings, admissibility of late-filed attacks on inventive step, and various other procedural requests. The Court set the total case value at 6,000,000 EUR, declined to reschedule the oral hearing, excluded certain late-filed inventive step attacks, and ruled on the admissibility of auxiliary requests, equivalence arguments, and expert-related requests.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction removes the legal basis for a subsequent penalty order imposed for alleged violations of that injunction. The Court held that the setting aside of a preliminary injunction under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the injunction is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning. Consequently, the Court set aside the penalty order of €100,000 imposed on NanoString, rejected 10x's applications, ordered 10x to bear the costs, and directed the Registry to refund the amount paid by NanoString.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application concerning the service of a request for preliminary measures (interim injunction) to a Chinese-domiciled defendant in proceedings related to EP 3 655 341. After formal service under the Hague Service Convention failed due to the Chinese authority's non-processing for over six months, and alternative methods of service were neither factually nor legally possible, the court held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. Service was deemed effective as of the date of the order, with the defendant given fourteen days to file an objection.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by air up group GmbH for a preliminary injunction against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. regarding EP 3 897 305. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention despite multiple attempts over more than six months. The court declared the steps already taken as good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, deemed service effective as of the date of the order, and granted the defendant 14 days to file an objection.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. regarding EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention as the competent Chinese authority received the documents but failed to process them for more than six months. The Local Division Munich held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order and granting the defendant 14 days to file an objection.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court granted Avago's application for an anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunction against Realtek. Realtek had filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking to permanently enjoin Avago from pursuing patent infringement claims in Germany against certain automotive companies using Realtek's products. The court held that such foreign anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions violate the European right to access to justice under Art. 47 of the EU Charter and the German constitutional right to access to courts, and qualify as tortious acts under § 823(1) BGB.