European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 48 of 67 · 1,592 total
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a motion filed by the defendants (OROPE and OPPO) seeking to suspend the proceedings related to EP 2 568 724 and postpone the announcement date. The court rejected these requests, emphasizing that procedural fairness requires both parties to actively participate in the process. The ruling underscores that unilateral attempts to delay or halt a case without mutual agreement or compelling justification will be unsuccessful.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued OPPO group companies for infringing its patent EP 2 568 724, which relates to radio communication devices essential for the 4G standard. The case also involved counterclaims regarding FRAND licensing and patent revocation. While the court found infringement and awarded preliminary damages of €250,000, it ultimately dismissed the main infringement lawsuit. This decision highlights the complex interplay between finding technical infringement and the ultimate scope of relief granted in UPC proceedings.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In a significant ruling for green technology patents, the UPC found that Arkyne Technologies S.L. infringed Plant-e Knowledge B.V.'s patent EP2137782 by equivalence. The court applied a detailed four-part test to determine if the respondent's biofuel cell products fell within the scope of the claims, confirming both validity and infringement. This decision underscores the importance of robust claim construction and the application of the equivalence doctrine in complex technological fields like microbial fuel cells.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation sought provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics regarding the infringement of its insulin patch pump patent (EP 4201327). The Court dismissed Insulet's application, finding that the necessary cumulative evidence—including a sufficient degree of certainty regarding validity and imminent infringement—was not met. This decision underscores the high procedural bar required to obtain interim relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when faced with multiple validity challenges.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Plant-e successfully sued Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) in the UPC for infringement of its patent covering devices and methods that convert light energy into electricity using living plants. The court ruled that the patent was valid and found infringement based on equivalence, not just literal reading. This decision reinforces the application of established national case law tests when assessing non-literal infringement within the unified patent system.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation sought a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. regarding the alleged infringement of its fluid dispensing device patent (EP4201327), which covers advanced insulin pumps. However, the UPC Court of First Instance denied the application for provisional measures. The court determined that significant doubts existed concerning the novelty and validity of Insulet's patent in light of prior art disclosures, thereby preventing the immediate granting of an injunction.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB, Vab-Logistik UAB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a stay of infringement proceedings pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO. The court affirmed the legal basis for such a stay under Art. 33(10) UPCA, noting that it is crucial to prevent conflicting judgments between the UPC and the EPO regarding patent validity. Despite recognizing the merits of the request, the Court ultimately referred the case back to the Court of First Instance (CFI), allowing the CFI to exercise its discretion with full knowledge of the infringement proceedings' status.
Verweerder (unnamed in the provided text, but implied to be the party holding the patent) v.OrthoApnea S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision focused primarily on procedural matters concerning the admissibility of new arguments during an infringement case involving a sleep splint device. The court ruled that while parties are generally expected to present their full case early, new arguments can be admitted if circumstances permit and the opposing party has a chance to respond. Ultimately, the appeal against the review judgment was dismissed, upholding the lower court's findings on procedural grounds.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This appeal concerns a dispute over the scope of a preliminary injunction issued against Magna by the CFI, specifically regarding whether the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was correctly exempted from supply obligations. Magna sought suspensive effect to prevent enforcement on this specific model while its appeal proceeded. The Court of Appeal Standing Judge granted an interim order suspending the relevant part of the injunction, recognizing Magna’s interest in maintaining the status quo until a full panel decision is reached.
Collomix GmbH v.Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG; Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG; Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC court addressed a motion by Collomix GmbH to submit physical evidence of an allegedly infringing water dosing device (PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät). The respondents argued that such evidence should have been presented at the time of filing the claim. However, the court rejected this argument, citing Rule 172.2 EPGVerfO, which grants the court the power to order the submission of evidence at any point in the proceedings if the claimant asserts a fact and possesses the item. This decision reinforces the flexibility of the UPC's procedural rules regarding evidence presentation, ensuring that necessary preparatory steps are taken without prematurely limiting the scope of proof.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., etc.)
In a procedural order concerning EP 4 026 488, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf decided to proceed with a joint hearing of the infringement action brought by DexCom against Abbott and its subsidiaries, alongside the counterclaim for revocation. This decision prioritizes efficiency, ensuring that both validity and infringement are assessed under a single, uniform interpretation by the same judicial panel. The court also mandated the allocation of a technically qualified judge (TQJ) to manage the case effectively.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott GmbH, etc.)
In a procedural order concerning the dispute between DexCom, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories regarding EP 4 026 488, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted an extension of time for filing key pleadings. Although the Defendants did not consent to the delay, the Court found that granting the extension was justified on grounds of fairness and equity. This order highlights the procedural flexibility available within the UPC framework when balancing strict timelines against the practical needs of complex litigation.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application for rectification filed by Magna against Valeo following a prior injunction concerning electric motor generators and related parts used in BMW vehicles. Magna sought to amend the scope of the permitted use exceptions and clarify the geographical reach of a parallel vindication action. The Court ultimately dismissed these requests, upholding the original order's wording and finding that no 'obvious slip' or clerical error existed.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This UPC CFI case involved an application for rectification filed by Magna against Valeo following a previous injunction order concerning electric motor generators and gearbox assemblies used in BMW vehicles. Magna sought to amend the scope of the permitted use exceptions and clarify the geographical reach of related litigation actions. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected these requests, confirming that the original Order was legally sound and contained no clerical errors or obvious slips.
City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v.Maars Holding B.V.
In this UPC Security Application, Maars successfully argued that it required security for legal costs due to concerns over City Glass's financial situation and its non-EU base in India. The Court ruled in favor of Maars, ordering the Indian claimant to provide a deposit of EUR 19,000. This decision highlights the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness for defendants against the need to protect IP rights, while still accommodating international parties.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc.
This UPC preliminary order addressed a dispute over the confidentiality of documents related to the transfer of Patent EP2792100 from its original owner to Daedalus Prime LLC. The Claimant sought highly restricted access, arguing that details like purchase price were confidential and irrelevant to technical employees. The Court ultimately granted limited access to two specific in-house legal counsels on the Defendants' side (Xiaomi/MediaTek), while denying broader access to all personnel, thereby balancing commercial secrecy with procedural fairness.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this UPC case concerning the patent EP2792100, Daedalus Prime LLC sought to restrict access to confidential documents related to the patent transfer agreement. The Court of First Instance issued a preliminary order balancing confidentiality concerns with procedural fairness for the Defendants (Xiaomi and MediaTek). While granting restricted access to specific in-house legal counsel, the court rejected the Claimant's argument that all employees were irrelevant, but also limited access based on job function.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE
This preliminary order addressed a procedural issue in an infringement action brought by Malikie Innovations Ltd. against Nintendo of Europe SE regarding patent EP2579551. The Claimant sought to correct the name of Defendant 1 from 'Nintendo of Europe AG' to 'Nintendo of Europe SE', as the latter succeeded the former. The Court granted this rectification, confirming that no unreasonable prejudice was caused because the successor company had taken over all assets and business premises.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addressed applications filed by Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, seeking information about ongoing antitrust investigations by the European Commission against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The Court ultimately rejected these requests, finding that the Claimant's assertion—that the EC procedure was still in a preliminary fact-gathering stage without a formal investigation—was undisputed. This decision keeps the main infringement proceedings moving forward without external interference from EU competition authorities.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh
Edwards Lifesciences successfully sued Meril Life Sciences in the UPC Local Division Munich regarding infringement of its patented SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve. The court found infringement and issued a comprehensive order, including the destruction of infringing devices and substantial preliminary damages. This ruling reinforces the strength of patent rights within the Unified Patent Court system, particularly for critical medical technologies like TAVI.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Claimant) sued Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Respondents) for infringement of EP 3646825. The Defendants sought to compel the UPC to request information from the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant's patent practices. However, the Panel rejected this request, finding that the preliminary nature of the EC proceedings meant no formal investigation had been opened. This decision underscores the Court's focus on procedural efficiency and its reliance on established facts presented during hearings.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd
This UPC decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to patent infringement (EP 3 197 316). The Court ruled that despite Rule 370(9)(b) VerfO explicitly referencing 'Klage' (action), it could be analogously applied to provisional measure applications. This ruling fills a regulatory gap, confirming that the incentive structure for early case termination—where fees are partially refunded based on when the application is withdrawn—applies consistently across different types of UPC proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Panel rejected the Defendants' requests to compel the European Commission to provide details on ongoing antitrust investigations against the Claimant. The Court determined that since both parties confirmed the EC procedure was still in a preliminary fact-gathering stage without a formal investigation, there was no relevant new information to be obtained at this time. This decision underscores the court's focus on the core patent litigation while managing procedural requests for external regulatory data.
Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
In a significant procedural ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to an order issued by the CFI. The dispute involved Magna International and Valeo Electrification regarding patent EP 3 320 602, which covers technology used in BMW models. Magna successfully argued that the original injunction contained a clear error—an 'obvious slip'—by omitting a specific model from its exceptions. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to correct procedural errors and prioritize maintaining the status quo when such errors threaten fundamental fairness.