European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 5 of 67 · 1,592 total
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the critical issue of service of process against a defendant based in China. Despite formal attempts via Chinese authorities failing, and subsequent email contact being ignored, the Court invoked the principle of effective judicial protection. It ruled that publishing the provisional measures order on the UPC website constituted valid good service, allowing the proceedings to continue without further delay.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of service of process in a UPC provisional measures case involving parties across different jurisdictions, specifically China. The Court found that traditional methods of serving Defendant 2 were ineffective and unduly delayed. By invoking the principle of effective judicial protection, the Düsseldorf Local Division declared that publishing the preliminary injunction on the UPC website constituted valid good service. This ruling provides significant guidance for practitioners dealing with cross-border litigation where formal service is impractical.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a complex cost determination dispute arising from an infringement case involving EP 2 697 391 B1. The core issue was whether the cost ceilings applicable to the initial Provisional Measures proceedings and the subsequent main infringement action should be combined or treated separately. The Court firmly rejected the Claimant's attempt to create a unified ceiling, reinforcing the principle that separate proceedings maintain distinct financial caps. This ruling is highly significant for patent practitioners as it clarifies the boundaries of cost recovery when litigation spans multiple UPC stages (PI vs. Merits). It mandates meticulous tracking and separation of costs to ensure compliance with individual proceeding ceilings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a second application for penalties during ongoing enforcement proceedings concerning EP 3 511 174. The Claimant, Fujifilm, successfully argued that Kodak and its subsidiaries had failed to fully comply with previous court orders regarding destruction and recall of infringing products. The Court found the defendants' disclosures were incomplete and lacked necessary detail, justifying the continuation of penalty measures. While the request for penalty reduction was rejected, leave to appeal was granted, highlighting the evolving nature of enforcement jurisprudence under the UPC.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural request for discretionary review filed by the defendants (Alpinestars) against an order from the Local Division. The core issue was whether the appeal remained necessary after the Local Division subsequently amended its original ruling to grant leave to appeal. The Court ruled that since the first instance proceedings evolved and rendered the appeal obsolete, the request could be withdrawn. This case highlights the dynamic nature of UPC litigation and how procedural developments can impact appellate remedies.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for confidentiality concerning information exchanged during infringement litigation. The court ruled that once a party provides information without restriction under a court order, the recipient loses the basis to restrict its use. This clarifies the scope of confidentiality protections in the UPC, emphasizing that specific requests (R. 262A RoP) are needed when disclosure is mandated by the court.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA concerning the diagnostic instrument and method covered by EP 3 756 767 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. This decision highlights the procedural implications of bifurcated UPC cases, confirming that a finding of non-infringement renders the validity question moot for the immediate action. It also sets clear parameters regarding cost allocation in unsuccessful litigation.
Agathon AG v.Intercom s.r.l., KNARR Vertriebs GmbH
This interim order in the UPC case between Agathon AG and Intercom s.r.l./KNARR Vertriebs GmbH focused heavily on procedural matters ahead of the oral hearing. The Court authorized the admission of technical drawings and samples of both infringing and prior art products, streamlining evidence presentation. Crucially, the parties agreed to allow KNARR to address validity issues during the hearing even without a formal counterclaim for revocation. This order sets clear deadlines for final briefs and prepares the case for joint discussion on infringement and validity.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC decision, the Central Division addressed a challenge to the standing of the claimant in a revocation action. The court firmly established that for an independent interest in revocation proceedings, the claimant's own business activity is paramount, regardless of corporate group structures or control relationships. This ruling clarifies the scope of 'party identity' under EPC Art. 33(4) within the UPC framework, rejecting arguments based solely on parent-subsidiary links.
Applicant v.Registrar of the UPC
This decision addresses a petition for review concerning the eligibility of an applicant to be listed as a representative before the UPC. The core dispute centered on whether a one-year time limit in Rule 12.1 EPLC Rules constituted discrimination against European Patent Attorneys who obtained specific qualifications outside that window. The Court of Appeal upheld the Registrar's decision, ruling that the transitional period was necessary and not discriminatory, thereby reinforcing the strict application of qualification rules for UPC representation.
Bobst Manchester Limited v.Nordmeccanica S.p.A.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Nordmeccanica S.p.A. and Bobst Manchester Limited regarding EP3067437. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, granting the request to change the language from German to English. The ruling emphasized that when assessing fairness for a language change, the position of the defendant—who faces strict deadlines and must prepare its defense—is given decisive weight if interests are balanced.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the protection of confidential information in patent litigation, specifically concerning Standard Essential Patent (SEP) licensing agreements. The court established a tailored confidentiality regime that balances the need for secrecy with the parties' right to a fair trial. A key takeaway is the nuanced approach to access rights, recognizing the necessity of employee involvement while mitigating potential harm through specific contractual restrictions on negotiations.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of confidentiality in patent litigation, specifically within a FRAND licensing context. The court provided extensive guidance on balancing the protection of sensitive information with the fundamental rights to an effective remedy and fair trial for the parties. Key takeaways include allowing access for party employees and mitigating risks through measures like barring involvement in negotiations.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Viatris Santé
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for maintaining confidentiality in proceedings. The court ruled that merely requesting confidentiality under R. 262.2 RoP is insufficient to restrict disclosure by opposing parties; a formal application under R. 262A RoP must be made simultaneously with lodging confidential evidence. This ruling emphasizes that unrestricted access is the default, and procedural compliance is mandatory for any restriction.
InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS v.Amazon.com, Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance in Mannheim addressed a request by Amazon to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court ruled in favor of Amazon, citing principles of fairness and efficiency under Article 49(5) UPCA. This decision highlights the practical application of balancing procedural rights against the needs of international parties in complex patent litigation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope and proportionality of confidentiality measures in complex patent litigation involving FRAND licensing. The court ruled on access rights for internal staff, affirming that employees are generally essential for a party's effective representation, even if it slightly compromises strict confidentiality regimes. Crucially, the ruling also provided a mechanism to protect third parties by imposing temporary bars on negotiations when confidential license data is involved.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the protection of confidential information in complex SEP litigation involving Ericsson and ASUS. The court meticulously crafted a confidentiality regime for sensitive license agreements, balancing the need to protect trade secrets against the parties' fundamental rights to a fair trial. A key innovation was the imposition of a five-year non-negotiation bar on party employees who gain access to these confidential licensing details, providing robust protection while maintaining procedural fairness.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 653 275 B8, the court addressed a request for an additional expert report following an initial inspection and evidence preservation order. The Local Division of Düsseldorf denied the supplementary expert opinion, finding that the existing findings were sufficient and that the procedure did not necessitate further technical clarification at this stage. However, the court granted access to the unredacted version of the expert's detailed description, ensuring transparency for the claimant.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA
Guardant Health sought provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding the alleged infringement of four liquid biopsy patents by their MSK-DDM test. The UPC Court rejected the application for provisional measures, citing insufficient demonstration of infringement and procedural issues such as unreasonable delay and improper use of 'added matter.' Crucially, the court also issued an interim costs award, ordering Guardant Health to pay Sophia Genetics 400,000 euros.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH S.A; ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A; ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD; BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE appealed a decision from the UPC Central Division (Paris) concerning an infringement action against various Robert Bosch entities regarding patent EP 2671766. The appeal challenges the jurisdiction and procedural language set by the initial division. This Order of Procedure confirms that the Court of Appeal will first assess the admissibility of VALEO's appeal before examining its merits, a standard procedure for managing complex UPC litigation. This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to appellate procedures within the Unified Patent Court framework.
Nagravision Sàrl v.Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Pinterest and Nagravision. The Court granted the request to change the language from German to English, aligning it with the language of the patent grant and the common working language of the multinational Defendants. This ruling emphasizes that operational efficiency and internal coordination needs of large corporate defendants can override the local language preference of a claimant in UPC proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.HMD Global Oy
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim established a comprehensive confidentiality regime for ongoing FRAND negotiations between Huawei and HMD Global. The court recognized that details of confidential license discussions require protection under Rule 262A RoP, extending this shield to future submissions. This order is significant as it provides clear legal certainty regarding the handling of sensitive commercial data within UPC proceedings, balancing the need for transparency with the necessity of protecting proprietary information.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
In a procedural case concerning an infringement action, the UPC granted the withdrawal request initiated by BTL Medizintechnik GmbH against Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.. The court confirmed that since both parties had reached a settlement, the proceedings could be formally closed without further judicial intervention on merits or costs.
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France
IMC Créations sued Mul-T-Lock France alleging infringement of its European patent EP4153830 concerning vehicle security locks. The case involved complex arguments regarding the modified unit patent and nullity counterclaims. Although IMC Créations was held responsible for damages resulting from the infringement, the court ultimately dismissed its claims related to the Swiss jurisdiction and did not grant a permanent injunction against Mul-T-Lock.