European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 52 of 67 · 1,592 total
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
In this UPC infringement case, Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought to proceed against Xiaomi and its affiliates regarding EP3024163. The defendants requested a suspension of the proceedings pending a final decision from the UK High Court on FRAND licensing terms. The rapporteur determined that this complex issue required a full panel ruling. Consequently, the matter was referred to the panel for decision during or after the scheduled oral hearings.
Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters within a patent infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox regarding an LVS device (EP 3 466 498). The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals concerning interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. While the core dispute was about patent validity/infringement, the ruling ultimately dismissed Mammut's appeal and ordered them to cover additional provisional costs.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This decision addresses procedural questions regarding the proper party to file a revocation counterclaim against in UPC proceedings. The court clarified that while the material owner is the ultimate rights holder, the registered patent holder can also be correctly sued for revocation purposes. This flexibility aims to streamline the process and prevent the alleged infringer from having to prove complex ownership chains.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC addressed a request by Heraeus Electronics to amend its infringement claims following changes in national patent litigation. The court permitted the amendment of direct infringement claims that reflected legal finality achieved elsewhere. However, the court rejected the late addition of an indirect infringement claim, citing lack of due diligence and arguing it should have been raised at the initial filing.
Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters related to an infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox concerning a snow avalanche transceiver (LVS) device protected by EP 3 466 498. The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals regarding interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's decision, but Mammut was ordered to cover additional provisional costs incurred by Ortovox during the appellate process.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural review concerning the connection joinder of two parallel infringement proceedings involving Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether consolidating the cases would violate principles of proportionality or lead to contradictory rulings. The panel ultimately approved the initial order, finding that the risk of divergent decisions was minimal due to shared judicial oversight across both divisions. This ruling reinforces the UPC's flexibility in case management while maintaining strict adherence to procedural fairness.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses an appeal concerning the disclosure of confidential license agreements during a SEP dispute involving Panasonic, OPPO, and OROPE. The core issue was whether the defendants could compel the production of extensive third-party licensing data to support their FRAND defense. The court ultimately rejected these requests, ruling that while transparency is important, the principle of proportionality and trade secret protection must be balanced against the current stage of the proceedings. This decision reinforces the judiciary's cautious approach to broad discovery in complex SEP litigation.
I.G.B. S.r.l. v.Unilever France
In a procedural ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed Unilever France's attempt to introduce new claims concerning financial guarantees and execution timelines for injunction, recall, and destruction measures. Unilever argued these were necessary due to new facts regarding packaging use. However, the Court found that these modifications merely complemented previously raised accessory demands and did not fundamentally alter the scope of the infringement dispute. The request for authorization under Rule 263 ROP was therefore dismissed.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses a motion for the production of evidence (R.190 VerfO) in an SEP dispute concerning 4G mobile phone standards. OPPO and OROPE sought access to Panasonic's confidential licensing agreements to bolster their FRAND defense, arguing that transparency was necessary. The Court ultimately rejected these requests, stressing the principle of proportionality and the need to protect trade secrets, even when dealing with SEPs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addressed an application for the production of evidence (R.190 VerfO) during a complex SEP/FRAND dispute involving OPPO, OROPE, and Panasonic. The court rejected the request by the defendants to obtain extensive documentation from Panasonic regarding its licensing agreements with third parties. The ruling underscores the judicial balancing act required when assessing requests for confidential information in FRAND cases, prioritizing proportionality over broad disclosure.
SWAT Medical AB v.Meril Italy srl, Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC decision addressed a request for public access to confidential pleadings and evidence within an ongoing revocation action concerning a medical device patent. The applicant, SWAT Medical AB, sought access based on their interest as a competitor in the cardiac implant technology field. However, the Court rejected the application, ruling that general industry involvement is not enough to override the need to protect the integrity of the proceedings and confidential party interests. This case reinforces the high threshold required for third parties seeking document access in UPC litigation.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the protection of confidential information in a case concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Court formally classified specific exhibits as confidential and issued strict access restrictions for both the Applicant (Valeo Electrification) and the Defendants (Magna group). This ruling reinforces the importance of confidentiality protocols within UPC proceedings, ensuring sensitive business information is protected during litigation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
In this procedural order, the UPC denied a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor) seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in ongoing infringement and counterclaim proceedings. The Court held that while transparency is important, the integrity of the private dispute must be protected until the case concludes. This decision reinforces the principle that requests for public access must be highly specific and demonstrate a direct, plausible interest related to the patent's subject matter.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addressed a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor) seeking access to confidential pleadings and evidence in several UPC cases. The Court ultimately denied this access, emphasizing that while transparency is important, the integrity of ongoing civil litigation must be protected. The ruling clarified that merely being a competitor or investor is insufficient grounds for disclosure when the core patent information is already public.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Apple and Ona Patents SL. The appeal sought to change the language from German (the patent's granting language) to English, based on the multinational nature of Apple and the technical field's common use of English. The court ultimately sided with Apple, finding that maintaining the German language would disproportionately disadvantage the defendant, thereby upholding the principle of fairness over the claimant's initial choice.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addressed a request by an applicant (a medical device investor/competitor) seeking broad access to the court's pleadings and evidence in ongoing UPC infringement cases. The Court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that the integrity of private civil litigation must be protected until proceedings conclude. The ruling reinforces the high bar for applicants seeking public disclosure of case materials, requiring a concrete and legitimate interest beyond general competitive curiosity.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP concerning infringement actions involving automotive technology patents. The court clarified that R.361 procedures are limited and not suitable for comprehensive factual disputes, emphasizing that detailed claims with lists of similar infringing embodiments do not automatically render an action 'manifestly bound to fail.' This ruling provides guidance on the scope of early procedural challenges in UPC litigation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addressed a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor) seeking broad access to pleadings and evidence in ongoing UPC infringement cases. The Court denied this access, emphasizing that the integrity of private civil litigation must be protected until proceedings conclude. While denying the immediate request, the Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing the importance of clarifying the legal interpretation regarding public access under RoP 262.1(b).
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
In this procedural order, the UPC denied a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor in medical devices) seeking broad access to all pleadings and evidence across multiple related infringement and counterclaim actions. The Court emphasized that while transparency is vital, the integrity of ongoing civil litigation must be protected from external interference. Since the core patent descriptions are already public, the court found no compelling reason for granting wide-ranging access at this stage.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses preliminary objections and requests under Rule 361 RoP in a complex infringement case involving NST and Audi. The court established key procedural boundaries, ruling that R.361 challenges are not suitable for full evidentiary battles. Crucially, the panel affirmed that an initial claim detailing one infringing example while listing others does not automatically fail the 'manifestly bound to fail' test. This decision reinforces the flexibility of UPC procedure while maintaining standards for early case filtering.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case. The appeal sought to change the language from German to English, based on the patent's grant language and the defendant's operational context. The court ultimately sided with the defendant (Google), establishing that while claimants have a right to choose the language, this right is balanced against the principle of fairness for the defendant. This ruling provides important guidance on how procedural rights interact with the need to ensure equitable litigation in the UPC.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order concerning the revocation of EP2145848, Oerlikon sought to introduce an eighth auxiliary request (AR8) based on new prior art. The UPC Court ruled against Oerlikon, emphasizing that Rule 30.2 ROP is a restrictive measure designed to prevent endless amendments and maintain procedural efficiency. This decision reinforces the strict requirements for introducing subsequent amendments in patent litigation.
Unspecified Claimant v.OrthoApnea S.L.
This procedural decision in the UPC infringement case involving EP 2 331 036 sets the stage for the main hearing. The court formally established the value of the dispute at €250,000 and provided comprehensive guidelines for the oral proceedings. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the financial parameters and procedural expectations for both parties moving into the evidentiary phase.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a procedural order concerning a revocation action, the UPC Central Division addressed a late counterclaim for infringement filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. Despite the filing missing the two-month deadline set by Rule 49 RoP, the court granted an exceptional retrospective extension of the time limit. The ruling emphasizes that technical malfunctions beyond a party's reasonable control can justify granting such extensions under UPC rules, providing clarity on procedural fairness in complex litigation.