European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 48 of 84 · 2,007 total
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Inc, Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A.
Procedural Order
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Claimant 10x Genomics requested that the Defendant Curio Bioscience provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Defendant argued the application was inadmissible, contending that Art. 69(4) UPCA only permits defendants to request security from claimants. The Court held the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Defendant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within four weeks, and granted leave to appeal.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division Munich in favor of Dyson Technology Limited against SharkNinja. The dispute centered on European Patent EP 2 043 492, directed to a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a cyclonic separating apparatus. The Court of Appeal set aside the preliminary injunction, finding that Dyson had not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the attacked SharkNinja embodiments infringed claim 1, specifically because the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the accused products used a cyclonic separating apparatus employing centrifugal force as required by feature 1.3 of the patent.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement and nullity counterclaim proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 215 288 (metal sintering preparation). The court addressed multiple requests including the review of a prior rejection of an amendment to add indirect infringement of a process claim, and requests by both parties to extend the proceedings to Romania following its accession to the UPC Agreement on September 1, 2024. The court granted the extensions to Romania for both the infringement claim and the nullity counterclaim, revised its prior order on indirect infringement, and established a new briefing schedule.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 594 009 B1 in a patent infringement action. The Court disregarded the Defendants' written submissions filed on 28 November 2024 because the Defendants failed to make a reasoned request for further written submissions as required under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC concerning European patent EP 2 875 740 B1, which relates to electronic vapour products. NJOY challenged the patent's validity on the ground of lack of inventive step, relying on prior art documents including 'Cross', 'Pan', and 'DiFonzo', as well as common general knowledge. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the invention was not obvious in view of the cited prior art combinations, and maintained the patent as granted, ordering NJOY to bear the costs.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing for its representatives who lacked sufficient English skills. The court granted the request for interpretation but ruled that the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, allowing FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against an unnamed Appellant who had appealed an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague concerning EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had initially declared micro-enterprise status to qualify for a reduced court fee but failed to substantiate his status as a small enterprise when ordered to do so, and did not pay the additional fees imposed. The Court denied the Appellant's requests to waive the additional fee and for legal aid, closed the appeal by default, and ordered the Appellant to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France SARL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 28 November 2024 in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 320 604 B1. The order classifies certain information contained in the Defendants' Statement of defence and specific exhibits as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP, and restricts access to a defined group of authorised persons on the Claimant's side.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 456 214, which relates to vaporizers/electronic cigarettes, on the grounds of lack of inventive step based on prior art documents 'Pan' and 'Cross'. The defendant filed conditional applications to amend the patent with multiple auxiliary requests. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the grounds for invalidity well founded, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rescheduling an Interim Conference in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2145848. The defendant Himson Engineering Private Limited declared unavailability due to prior professional commitments, and the court rescheduled the conference to the afternoon of the same day and converted it to a video-conference format with the agreement of all parties.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court considered Total Semiconductor's request for discretionary review of an order by the Mannheim Local Division's judge-rapporteur requiring Total Semiconductor to provide €600,000 in security for costs. The central issue was whether a judge-rapporteur has the competence to issue an order on security for costs and deny leave to appeal, or whether such an order must be adopted by a panel. The Court of Appeal allowed leave to appeal on this procedural question but expressly excluded the substantive matter of security for costs from the scope of review.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, the claimant in a patent infringement action against Microsoft Corporation before the Central Division (Paris seat), applied under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to reduce its damages claim from the originally stated amount to €2 million, citing more accurate evidence. Microsoft opposed, arguing the application fell outside Rule 263, was a litigation tactic to reduce security for costs, and failed to meet the rule's requirements. The Court granted the application, holding that a reduction of damages constitutes a limitation of the claim which must be granted under Rule 263(3) when filed with due explanation and unconditionally, but rejected Suinno's request to reconsider fees already paid.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns a request by the defendants for the claimant to provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 346 403. The defendants argued that the claimant, a Korean IP monetization company incorporated in 2024 with limited assets and a low credit rating, posed a risk that any cost order would be unrecoverable. The claimant did not contest the request and agreed to provide security of EUR 112,000, and the court ordered the security to be provided by deposit or bank guarantee by 15 January 2025.
C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell
Procedural order from the Paris local division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2265793. The court addressed NOVAWELL's procedural requests to reject an affidavit from a prior seizure operation, to hear witnesses, and to conduct pleadings in French, all of which were dismissed. The court set the value of the case at EUR 1 million and established the timetable for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 17 December 2024.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Logistics B.V. and Others
This procedural order concerns an application by DexCom, Inc. under Rules 334(e) and 336 of the Rules of Procedure, seeking to reopen the debate after the oral hearing in an infringement action concerning European patent EP3831282. DexCom sought to introduce a November 6, 2024 decision of the Munich Regional Court concerning the parent patent EP 2,939,158. The Court held the application admissible but dismissed it as not well-grounded, finding the Munich decision concerned a different patent with different features and did not examine validity on the merits.
Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co
Häfele SE & Co KG sought interim measures from the Local Chamber Munich against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 767 151 concerning a cabinet levelling apparatus. The court rejected the application, finding that prior art documents (D8 and D9) raised serious doubts about the validity of the patent, and that the balance of interests weighed against granting interim relief given the pending nullity action and opposition proceedings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's application under Rule 333 RoP to review and set aside a prior order by the Judge-Rapporteur that had rejected FUJIFILM's request to submit a further written pleading in response to new prior use allegations raised by the Kodak defendants in their Rejoinder. The Panel found the request for review admissible but dismissed it on the merits, holding that the Judge-Rapporteur had correctly balanced the risk of delay against the Claimant's interest in further written submissions.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848, owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG against Himson Engineering Private Limited. The order sets out the agenda for the upcoming Interim Conference and Oral Hearing, addressing issues including settlement possibilities, translation errors in the Italian patent validation, Himson's counterclaim for revocation, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, the infringement claim, and ancillary measures. The Interim Conference was postponed from 29 November 2024 to 6 December 2024 due to a general strike in Italy.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The defendants in a patent infringement case concerning EP 2 568 724 filed a last-minute request to stay the proceedings and cancel the scheduled announcement date of November 22, 2024, or alternatively to postpone it to at least December 6, 2024. The Local Chamber Mannheim rejected both the main and alternative requests, finding that no joint application for stay existed under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure and that no circumstances justified a stay under Rule 295(m).
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to radio communication devices and methods essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a revocation counterclaim and a FRAND counterclaim seeking court-determined license terms. The Local Chamber Mannheim found partial infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim and the FRAND counterclaim, and ordered the defendants to bear the costs.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants in microbial fuel cells, to be valid and infringed by equivalence by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court applied a four-question test for assessing infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringement, recall infringing products, provide information, publish a corrective notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for non-compliance.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation sought provisional measures from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against A. Menarini Diagnostics, alleging infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327 through the sale of the EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump insulin patch pump. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Insulet failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid and infringed, and that the balance of interests did not favor granting the injunction. Insulet was ordered to pay EUR 117,465.00 as interim costs.