European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 50 of 67 · 1,592 total
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning trade secrets, the UPC granted an order to protect confidential information contained within a licensing agreement (BP 34). The court recognized that the document held commercially valuable business and operational secrets. Consequently, access was strictly limited to the parties' legal counsel ('Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only'), reinforcing existing protections from parallel US litigation.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.European Patent Office (EPO)
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application seeking the reimbursement of court fees related to a previous action against the European Patent Office (EPO). The case, which involved challenging an EPO decision, was closed after the EPO rectified its initial ruling. However, the UPC Court dismissed Qualcomm's request for fee reimbursement. The Court ruled that because the original order on this matter was issued by a single judge and is appealable, the current application could not overturn or modify that prior procedural decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning confidentiality, the UPC Court addressed the protection of sensitive business information shared between 10x Genomics and Vizgen. The court confirmed that specific documents contained highly confidential trade secrets related to their licensing agreement. It issued an order strictly limiting access to these materials only to the respective outside legal counsel, reinforcing the protective measures established in parallel US litigation.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH; SSAB Europe Oy
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures, Tiroler Rohre GmbH sought an interim injunction against SSAB entities. After a hearing, the claimant withdrew its application. The court subsequently dismissed the request and ruled that since the withdrawal did not prevent future proceedings, there was no legitimate interest for the respondents to have a decision on the matter. Consequently, the claimant was ordered to cover all procedural costs.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. v.Amgen, Inc.
This UPC Order addressed a request by Dehns, an external representative firm, seeking access to all written pleadings and evidence in the Sanofi v Amgen revocation action. The Court affirmed that there is a general public interest in transparency, allowing practitioners to better understand how the court reached its decision. While granting access to substantive documents, the Court strictly limited the scope of disclosure only to 'written pleadings and evidence,' rejecting requests for administrative or formal documentation.
Dehns v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
This UPC Order addressed a request by Dehns, a representative firm, seeking access to all documents in an ongoing revocation action (Sanofi-Aventis v Amgen). The Court clarified the scope of Rule 262.1(b) RoP, distinguishing between 'written pleadings and evidence' and other administrative or formal documents. While granting Dehns access to the core case materials, the Court rejected requests for non-substantive documentation, setting a clear boundary on public transparency rights in UPC proceedings.
Dehns v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This UPC Order addressed a request by Dehns (a representative firm) to access documents from concluded revocation and counterclaim proceedings involving Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Amgen, Inc. The Court confirmed that while the general principle favors public access after a decision is rendered, the scope of access must strictly adhere to 'written pleadings and evidence' as defined in Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Consequently, Dehns was granted access to relevant core documents but was denied access to administrative or formal procedural documents.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This UPC Appeal Board decision addressed a motion to admit new evidence in an ongoing infringement case involving SharkNinja and Dyson regarding EP 2 043 492. SharkNinja sought to introduce documents from a US patent litigation, arguing that the opposing party's interpretation of key features was crucial for determining novelty and inventive step. The Appeal Board ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that evidence from other proceedings must meet strict relevance criteria and cannot simply contradict arguments made in the current case.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Sling TV L.L.C.
In this UPC procedural case (UPC_CFI_471/2023), DISH Technologies and Sling TV sought an order compelling defendants to disclose the source code of their media players used in streaming services. The court ultimately rejected this request, ruling that the balance of interests did not justify forcing the disclosure. This decision highlights the high threshold required for obtaining source code under UPC procedures, emphasizing that claimants must demonstrate a specific, unfulfilled need beyond what can be gathered through existing technical analysis.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
In this UPC case concerning streaming technology (EP 2 479 680), the claimants sought an order compelling defendants to disclose detailed information about how their video files are encoded and structured. The court ultimately rejected this request for disclosure. This decision highlights the high threshold required in UPC proceedings before a party can compel another to provide highly specific technical data, emphasizing that such requests must be strictly necessary given the current state of evidence.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
In this UPC case concerning streaming services and CDN usage, the claimants sought court orders compelling defendants to disclose detailed technical information about their Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), including server locations and video file encoding. The Local Court of Mannheim ultimately dismissed these requests for disclosure. This decision highlights the high threshold required in UPC proceedings before a party can successfully compel complex technical evidence from an opposing party, particularly when establishing territorial scope or infringement mechanisms.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the determination of costs for an appeal stage. The claimant, SES-imagotag SA, opposed the request from Hanshow entities to recover substantial appeal costs (€131,874.80). The court ultimately rejected the cost claim because the respondents missed the strict one-month deadline for filing the costs application under Rule 151 EPGVerfO. Their subsequent attempts to cure this procedural defect were deemed invalid due to improper filing and failure to pay required fees.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In a significant revocation action, the UPC Central Division completely revoked EP 2 794 928 B1, which covers methods for detecting analytes. The court determined that the patent lacked novelty over existing prior art (Göransson). This decision aligns with previous findings from both national courts and the Court of Appeal in related cases. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to rigorous examination of patent validity and strict adherence to procedural deadlines.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a purely procedural matter concerning the admissibility of an appeal against a first-instance order. The appellant, Photon Wave Co., Ltd., challenged the lack of explicit authorization to appeal. The court ruled that under Rule 220.2 RdP, such authorization must be expressly granted by the Tribunal; general references are not enough.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Microsoft Corporation to review an order dismissing its application that Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action was manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued the lack of independence of Suinno’s representative made the case clearly bound to fail under R. 361 RoP. The Court ultimately dismissed Microsoft's request, emphasizing that 'manifest inadmissibility' requires a clear-cut situation and should not be used for general disputes over legal interpretation.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Ericsson sought a preliminary injunction against AsusTek, Digital River, and Arvato regarding the alleged infringement of EP 2 819 131 B1 by laptops containing specific Intel Wi-Fi modules. The UPC Local Division in Lisbon ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. While the court affirmed that offering products via an internet domain constitutes infringement, it found that Ericsson failed to meet the cumulative requirements necessary to grant the preliminary injunction.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
In a procedural ruling concerning infringement proceedings, the UPC CFI partially granted Winnow Solutions Limited's request to compel Orbisk B.V. to produce evidence regarding its food waste monitoring system (Orbi). The court recognized that while the initial requests were broad, specific technical documentation detailing how the Orbi System categorizes and corrects erroneous weights was necessary for a proper evaluation of infringement. This decision underscores the UPC's willingness to manage discovery in complex cases, balancing the claimant's need for evidence against the respondent's concerns over confidentiality.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
In this UPC case, Winnow Solutions Limited sought evidence from Orbisk B.V. to support its infringement claim regarding the food waste monitoring patent EP3198245. The Court of First Instance partially granted the request for production of documents (R. 190 RoP), compelling Orbisk to provide specific technical specifications on how their Orbi System functions, particularly concerning data categorization and error correction. This decision underscores the court's willingness to facilitate evidence gathering in complex infringement cases while maintaining safeguards for confidential business information.
SWAT Medical AB v.Meril Italy S.r.l.
This UPC decision addressed an application for public access to court records in ongoing revocation proceedings concerning a medical device patent. The applicant, SWAT Medical AB, sought access as a competitor interested in the validity of the patented technology. The Court ruled that the general principle of transparency applies, granting access to all pleadings and evidence. However, it also granted leave to appeal and suspended the order's effect, setting up potential future legal challenges regarding the scope of public disclosure.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
In this UPC case, i-mop GmbH successfully obtained a default judgment against ARCORA International GmbH regarding the infringement of its floor cleaning device patent (EP 3 760 094). The court found that ARCORA's product infringed the patent claims and granted preliminary relief, including damages and an injunction. Although the case was ultimately concluded due to partial withdrawal by i-mop, the ruling serves as a significant precedent regarding default judgments in UPC infringement proceedings.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving infringement and revocation, the central patent (EP 3 225 320 B1) was fully revoked by the EPO Board of Appeal prior to the final hearing. Consequently, the Local Division of Munich allowed the claimant to withdraw its infringement suit and declared the infringement proceedings terminated. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed as moot. This decision highlights how external events, such as patent revocation, can fundamentally alter the trajectory of UPC litigation.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed a request for deadline extensions filed by CAN Srl Airxcel Europe in an infringement case concerning EP 1 788 320 B1. The court strictly rejected both the preliminary opposition and statement of defense extension requests. The decision underscores the UPC's commitment to timely proceedings, requiring parties to meet deadlines unless a compelling exception is demonstrated.
Abbott Logistics B.V. v.DexCom, Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Court rejected Abbott's request to amend its claims based on the release of a new version of its LibreLinkUp application. Abbott argued that the timing was necessitated by commercially sensitive information regarding the product launch. However, the Court prioritized the principles of efficiency and celerity inherent in UPC proceedings, finding that allowing such an amendment so close to the oral hearing would unreasonably hinder DexCom's ability to prepare a defense.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a cost reimbursement claim following the dismissal of an initial injunction application. The court ruled in favor of the respondents (Hanshow group), granting them up to €200,000 for first instance costs incurred during the infringement proceedings. The ruling reinforces procedural efficiency by allowing courts to assess the reasonableness of legal fees and expenses without demanding highly detailed time sheets, provided the overall claim remains within the statutory ceiling.