European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 51 of 67 · 1,592 total
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the scope and access rights under a confidentiality order in an infringement action involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi Technology. The Claimant sought to expand access for its US counsel and include all future confidential information, arguing this was necessary for effective litigation strategy. The Panel rejected these requests, affirming that the initial restrictions were appropriate given jurisdictional constraints and the need for defined scope. Crucially, the Court granted leave to appeal for the Claimant.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 1793917), the defendant Aarke AB sought to adjourn the oral hearing, citing an outstanding appeal regarding a request for security for costs. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected this request. The court clarified that appeals related to certain orders do not automatically halt main proceedings, especially when the order in question (security for costs) does not fall under the specific exceptions of Art. 74 (3) UPCA.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH; expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. successfully sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringing its patent covering light emitting diodes (LEDs). The Düsseldorf Local Chamber found infringement, leading to an injunction and damages award against the defendants. Crucially, despite the joint action, the court dismissed the counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent, thereby upholding the validity of EP 3 926 698 B1. This decision reinforces the enforcement power of the UPC while clarifying procedural rules regarding multi-defendant litigation.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
In a significant decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC declared European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1 invalid across key EU territories (Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands). This revocation was achieved through a counterclaim brought by the defendants. Although the patent was invalidated, the court subsequently dismissed the original infringement lawsuit filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The ruling highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where successful revocation does not automatically guarantee success in the initial infringement claim.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal order addressed a procedural challenge brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against an earlier CFI order concerning security for costs. Suinno sought discretionary review, arguing that the original CFI order failed to properly indicate its right to appeal under UPCA rules. The Court ultimately dismissed the request, emphasizing strict adherence to the appellate procedure.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
This UPC appeal case centered on procedural disputes regarding the scope of arguments and the admissibility of new evidence in a patent infringement/validity matter concerning vacuum cleaner technology. Dyson sought to have certain grounds for invalidity disregarded by the Board of Appeal, while SharkNinja attempted to introduce late-filed US documents (FBD 27 and FBD 28) as supporting evidence. The Board ultimately rejected Dyson's procedural request but dismissed SharkNinja's attempts to introduce new material, emphasizing strict adherence to established appeal procedures.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for expedition rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. EOFlow sought to accelerate the appeal process to facilitate the joinder of parallel actions before oral hearings. However, the court rejected this request, finding that EOFlow's delay in filing its statement of grounds prejudiced the respondent, Insulet. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to procedural fairness and proportionality when managing timelines.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd.; Meril GmbH; Meril Italy S.r.l.
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sought an extension of time to file its rejoinder in a revocation action concerning EP 4 151 181. The Court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while efficiency is important, it cannot override the fundamental principle of fair trial. This decision reinforces the UPC's cautious approach to granting procedural extensions, ensuring balance and fairness between parties.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This preliminary UPC decision addressed several procedural motions within an ongoing infringement action concerning diabetes monitoring technology. The Court firmly rejected the Claimant's attempts to expand its claims or shift the burden of proof by requesting information, emphasizing adherence to the front-loaded nature of UPCA proceedings. By dismissing these applications and setting clear deadlines for expert evidence and oral hearings, the court moved the case closer to substantive trial.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH / Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision focused solely on the allocation of legal costs following an initial case where the defendant submitted a declaration of cessation and undertaking. The court affirmed that while such declarations often favor the claimant, Meril was ultimately held liable for the appeal costs due to its procedural conduct in the first instance. This ruling reinforces the principle that cost allocation under Art. 69 EPGÜ considers not only the final outcome but also the degree of success or failure throughout the proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC decision concerns an application by a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) to intervene in a patent infringement and revocation case involving NEC Corporation and TCL entities. The core issue was whether the Applicant had a sufficient legal interest to participate, given that the dispute involved FRAND licensing obligations under the HEVC standard. The Court ultimately permitted the intervention but imposed strict confidentiality measures on the access to sensitive negotiation details.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addresses the admissibility of an intervention by a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities. The Court affirmed that such administrators possess a genuine legal interest, despite their involvement being primarily economic (licensing royalties). This ruling is significant for SEP practitioners as it clarifies the standing of patent pool managers in UPC proceedings, allowing them to participate actively to protect their FRAND obligations.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Samsung Electronics GmbH for security for legal costs against Headwater Research LLC. The court found that Headwater, an NPE whose business model relies solely on patent litigation revenue, failed to sufficiently rebut the defendants' claims regarding its limited financial standing. As a result, the Claimant was ordered to deposit €100,000 as security for costs.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision concerns the intervention of a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities. The court affirmed that such administrators possess a genuine legal interest in the outcome, despite their involvement being primarily economic. This ruling clarifies the scope of 'legal interest' for third-party interveners in UPC proceedings, particularly those managing Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Order concerns an application to intervene in a patent infringement and revocation case involving NEC Corporation against various TCL entities, concerning HEVC Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The intervener is Access Advance LLC, the administrator of the relevant SEP pool. The Court ruled that the pool administrator possesses a genuine legal interest in the outcome, thereby admitting them as a party to the proceedings. This decision clarifies the procedural rights and limitations regarding confidential information access for patent pool administrators participating in UPC litigation.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This procedural order addressed an application by Eoflow Co Ltd to intervene in a provisional measures case brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. The Court ultimately dismissed the intervention request. The ruling emphasized the UPC's commitment to efficiency and speedy decision-making, particularly in urgent interim injunction proceedings, even when procedural rules allow for third-party participation.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
In this procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC dismissed an application by Eoflow Co Ltd to intervene in a dispute between Insulet Corporation and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. The intervener, who manufactured the disputed product, sought to support the defendant against the injunction request. The Court determined that allowing the intervention would excessively slow down the urgent provisional measures proceeding, especially since the intervener was already involved in parallel litigation before the Central Division.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC procedural order addressed a request for intervention filed by Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. in an interim injunction case between Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The Court ultimately rejected the intervention, ruling that Menarini's interest was merely hypothetical and could be sufficiently defended in parallel proceedings before the Local Division Milan. This decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements for third-party intervention in fast-moving provisional measures cases.
Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This decision from the UPC Appeals Court addressed a procedural dispute regarding deadlines for filing pleadings (Duplik) in an ongoing infringement and revocation action. Xiaomi sought discretionary review to overturn a previous ruling that partially denied their request for a deadline extension, arguing inconsistencies across different Local Divisions of the UPC. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no sufficient grounds to overturn the lower court's procedural decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC granted Microsoft Corporation's request for Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to provide security for legal costs. The court determined that based on evidence of the respondent's recent incorporation and lack of substantial assets, there was a legitimate concern that any future cost orders might not be recoverable. This ruling reinforces the Court's power to manage litigation risk by requiring financially vulnerable parties to secure their liabilities.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural point concerning the notification requirements under Rule R.158.4 RoP regarding security for costs. The court clarified that even if an initial order specifies a deadline for providing security, the warning about potential default judgment (under R.355 RoP) does not need to be embedded within that original operative text. Instead, a separate notification order is sufficient to ensure procedural fairness and compliance.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG
In a complex infringement and revocation case concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order. The defendants sought to delay proceedings by requesting time to respond to an appellate court's decision. The Court rejected this motion, indicating that the main substantive proceedings are moving forward without further delays based on the appeal ruling. This highlights the strict procedural management of UPC cases.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural point regarding the notification of default judgment risks. The court clarified that when ordering a party to provide security for costs, the warning about potential default proceedings (under R.355 RoP) does not need to be embedded in the main operative text of the order. Instead, it can be communicated through a separate judicial order. This ruling provides clarity on procedural requirements within UPC actions, particularly concerning cost security and its implications for case progression.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB initiated an infringement lawsuit against Optoma Corporation and its subsidiaries regarding EP 3 605 534. However, before a substantive ruling could be made, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf formally approved the withdrawal of the claim. This case highlights how settlements can resolve complex patent disputes within the UPC framework, allowing for procedural closure while addressing financial aspects like court fee reimbursement.