European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 49 of 84 · 2,007 total
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) ruled that 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, is valid and infringed by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court found infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringing activities, provide information, publish a recall notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for any further infringement.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation, owner of European Patent EP4201327 concerning a fluid delivery device (insulin pump), sought a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. alleging that EOFLOW's 'EOPatch' insulin pump infringed its patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) denied the application for provisional measures, finding significant doubts regarding the validity of the patent in light of prior art (US'994), which appeared to disclose all features of claim 1. The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Collomix GmbH v.Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG, and Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning water dosing devices marketed as 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät.' The claimant, Collomix GmbH, sought permission to submit a physical example of the accused embodiment after filing the claim. The court granted the request, holding that the Rules of Procedure contain no principle preventing a claimant from submitting evidence for facts alleged in the claim after the claim has been filed.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited and Others v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Court of First Instance (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) that had refused to stay infringement proceedings pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance erred by basing its refusal solely on the finding that a final EPO decision could not be expected rapidly, and referred the case back for further consideration of the stay request.
OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v.[Respondent]
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 331 036 B1 for a device treating nighttime breathing problems. The appellants (OrthoApnea and Vivisol) challenged orders of the Court of First Instance in Brussels regarding the admissibility of a new equivalence argument raised by the patent holder after filing its Statement of Claim. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal against the primary order was inadmissible, while the appeal against the reassessment order was admissible but had to be rejected, finding no abuse of discretion by the lower court.
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 before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had issued a preliminary injunction against Magna but exempted its supply obligations for five BMW models. Magna sought rectification, arguing the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was inadvertently omitted, which the Court of First Instance denied. The Standing Judge of the Court of Appeal granted Magna's renewed application for suspensive effect, suspending the impugned order's effect regarding the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model until the competent panel of the Court of Appeal decides on the matter.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories et al.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488, in which DexCom, Inc. brought a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, primarily for reasons of procedural efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
The Defendants filed an application under R. 353 RoP seeking rectification of an Order dated 31 October 2024, which had granted provisional measures against them concerning EP 3 320 604 B1. They sought three corrections: adding '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the list of exempted BMW models, clarifying that a French vindication action covered both French and German parts of the patent, and amending a statement about an obligation to update a list. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the application, finding no clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, or obvious slips in the original Order.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories et al.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488. The Claimant DexCom, Inc. requested an extension of time limits for filing the Rejoinder to the Counterclaim for revocation and the Reply to the conditional Application to amend. Although the Defendants (multiple Abbott entities) did not consent, the court granted the extension based on fairness and equity, extending the deadlines until 11 December 2024.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed an application by the Defendants (Magna entities) for rectification of an earlier order dated 31 October 2024, which had granted provisional measures against them in favor of the Applicant (Valeo Electrification) concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Defendants sought three corrections: adding the BMW model '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the exemption list, clarifying that a French vindication action also covered the German and Slovak parts of the patent, and correcting a statement about the parties' agreement to update a list. The Court found no obvious slips warranting rectification under R. 353 RoP and dismissed the application.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, and MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This case concerns a confidentiality application (R. 262A RoP) filed by the Claimant Daedalus Prime LLC in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP2792100. The Claimant sought to restrict access to certain statements regarding the transfer of the patent suit and a partially redacted Patent Transfer Agreement to attorneys' eyes only. The Court balanced the parties' interests and granted access to two specific in-house legal counsels of the Xiaomi Defendants, while denying access to a third in-house counsel responsible for technical analysis.
Maars Holding B.V. and Others v.City Glass and Glazing Private Limited
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Maars entities) applied for an order requiring the claimant (City Glass and Glazing Private Limited) to provide security for legal costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) granted the application in part, ordering City Glass to provide security of EUR 19,000 by deposit on the UPC account by 29 January 2025, while dismissing the request for leave for interim appeal.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This case concerns a confidentiality application (R. 262A RoP) filed by the Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, seeking to restrict access to certain documents filed in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant sought 'attorneys' eyes only' protection for statements regarding the transfer of the patent suit and a partially redacted Patent Transfer Agreement. The Court granted the confidentiality request but extended access to two specific in-house legal counsels of the Defendants, finding that while the Defendants' waivers in other proceedings did not bind them in UPC proceedings, access should be limited to legal counsel involved in legal analysis rather than technical analysis.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE & Nintendo Co., Ltd.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. filed an infringement action against Nintendo of Europe AG and Nintendo Co., Ltd. concerning EP2579551, but had erroneously named Defendant 1 as 'Nintendo of Europe AG' instead of 'Nintendo of Europe SE,' the latter being the universal successor. The Court granted the rectification of the defendant's name, finding no unreasonable prejudice since Nintendo of Europe SE had taken over all assets, premises, email addresses, and the VAT number of the former AG. The Court also determined that the date of service on the corrected defendant was deemed effected on 17 October 2024, serving as the starting point for the time-limit to file the Statement of Defence.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd (EP 3 197 316)
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court ruled on the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 3 197 316. The applicant, Koninklijke Philips N.V., withdrew its application for interim measures one day after filing, and subsequently sought reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid. The court held that Rule 370(9)(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure applies by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for interim measures and ordered reimbursement of €6,600.00.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European Patent No. 3646825 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants (Meril) filed applications requesting the court to approach the European Commission for information about ongoing antitrust investigations into the claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the oral hearing. The court rejected both applications as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and oral hearing, and noting that no formal antitrust investigation had been opened.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. and Meril GmbH
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court for infringement of European Patent EP 3 646 825 concerning transcatheter heart valve technology. The court found that Meril's Myval transcatheter heart valve and associated delivery and crimping systems infringed Edwards' patent, and ordered recall, destruction, damages of €663,000, and publication of the decision. The court also addressed public interest concerns by creating a mechanism allowing individual patients to request single-use licences for XL-sized Myval devices where the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve is not clinically suitable.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a request filed by the defendants (Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.) in an ongoing patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendants sought to have the court request information from the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) and to reopen the proceedings. The Local Division Munich rejected the request as late-filed and without merit.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 646 825 before the Local Division Munich. The Defendants (Meril) filed late applications requesting the Court to approach the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the written procedure. The Court rejected the requests as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and the oral hearing, and noted that no formal investigation had been opened by the European Commission.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning confidentiality measures in infringement actions related to European Patent No. 3 215 288. The defendant Vibrantz sought to classify certain recipe/formulation information regarding sintering pastes as confidential and restrict access to a limited number of persons. The court granted secrecy protection but allowed access to the five named natural persons requested by the Heraeus plaintiffs, finding that the defendant had unnecessarily disclosed the exact recipe details in its submissions.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
Order
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) brought a patent infringement action against LAMA France before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging that LAMA's compatible ink cartridges infringed European Patents EP 1 737 669 and EP 2 089 230 relating to fluid ejection devices in inkjet printers. LAMA counterclaimed for invalidity of both patents on grounds including insufficient description, extension beyond the application, and lack of patentability. The Court upheld the validity of both patents, found LAMA liable for infringement, and ordered injunctive relief, corrective measures, and information disclosure, while rejecting LAMA's preliminary questions to the CJEU and splitting costs equally between the parties.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Article 83(4) UPCA regarding the withdrawal of an opt-out from the UPC's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to proceedings commenced prior to it. Consequently, the Court set aside the Court of First Instance's orders dismissing AIM's infringement action and provisional measures request, and referred the actions back to the Court of First Instance for further adjudication.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a preliminary order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. The order relates to an application by the claimant for an order to produce evidence under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure. The order was issued on 12 November 2024 by Presiding Judge Dr. Zigann.