European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 52 of 84 · 2,007 total
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, which relates to a light emitting diode. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, information disclosure, destruction of infringing products, and damages, while declining to require security from the plaintiff.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
EOFlow appealed an order of the Central Division Milan that denied its request to join two parallel provisional measures proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327. EOFlow additionally requested the Court of Appeal to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines so that a decision could be issued before the scheduled oral hearings in the first instance. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that EOFlow had unnecessarily delayed filing its appeal and had not sufficiently taken into account the respondent's right to file a response.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 043 492, a patent dispute between SharkNinja (appellant/defendant) and Dyson Technology Limited (respondent/claimant). The Court of Appeal rejected Dyson's application to disregard several grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja, finding them sufficiently indicated in the statement of grounds. However, the court excluded two new pieces of evidence (FBD 27 and FBD 28) submitted by SharkNinja, finding they were not convincingly shown to be relevant and were submitted with undue delay.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's request for discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that granted Microsoft's request for security for costs and declared Suinno's own request for security inadmissible. The Court of Appeal held that Suinno was required to first request the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal before seeking discretionary review, and since Suinno failed to do so, its request was inadmissible.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This order concerns procedural applications filed in revocation proceedings related to European patent No. 4 151 181 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sought a 9-day extension of the deadline for lodging its rejoinder to align it with another deadline, but the respondents (Meril entities) opposed the request. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, holding that procedural efficiency must yield to the principle of fair trial, as granting the extension would create an imbalance since the claimants had already complied with the shorter, standard deadline.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Preliminary order of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) in an infringement action concerning EP patent 3 977 921 B1, relating to diabetes monitoring technology. The court dismissed Abbott's application to amend its prayer for relief, dismissed its application for an order to communicate information under Rule 191 RoP, and dismissed the defendants' grounds for revocation based on the Heller document. The court set procedural deadlines and scheduled the oral hearing for 19 December 2024.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. & Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the allocation of costs after Meril submitted a cease and desist declaration during provisional measures proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences over European Patent EP 3 763 331. The Court of Appeal held that when a defendant submits a cease and desist declaration after proceedings are initiated, the plaintiff is generally the prevailing party, and dismissed Meril's appeal, ordering Meril to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o., and TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 863 637. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Munich) admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file through the Claimant's representatives, subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on an application by Samsung under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in a patent infringement action brought by US-based Headwater Research LLC concerning EP 2 391 947. The Court found that Headwater, a non-practicing entity with no assets other than patents used in worldwide litigation, failed to substantively challenge the Defendants' concerns about cost recoverability. The Court ordered Headwater to deposit €100,000 as security for costs within three weeks.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. and Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application by Access Advance LLC, administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 863 637. The court admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 645 714 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a legal interest and that allowing it would circumvent a non-disclosure agreement and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich admitted the intervention in support of the Claimant, subject to strict confidentiality restrictions limiting Access Advance's access to certain sensitive information.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others (Access Advance LLC, Applicant)
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of an HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a sufficient legal interest and that allowing intervention would circumvent an NDA and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich granted the application to intervene, subject to strict confidentiality protections and procedural conditions.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order concerns an application by EOFLOW Co Ltd to intervene under Rule 313 RoP in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4201327 relating to a patch-insulin pump. The Milan Local Division dismissed the application to intervene, holding that the balance of interests favored a speedy decision in the interim proceedings, that Eoflow's arguments were already being addressed in parallel proceedings before the Milan Central Division, and that the provisional measures would only affect Eoflow indirectly.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co. Ltd (Request for Intervention by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.)
This procedural order from the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. to intervene in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against EOFLOW Co. Ltd regarding European Patent EP4201327. The Court first overruled Insulet's preliminary objection that the intervention application was inadmissible because it was filed in hard copy rather than electronically, finding that the CMS lacked a workflow for third-party interventions. On the merits, the Court rejected the intervention request, holding that intervention in interim injunction proceedings is only available in exceptional cases and that Menarini could adequately protect its interests in parallel proceedings before the Local Division Milan.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Eoflow Co Ltd Intervention)
Eoflow Co Ltd applied to intervene in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics concerning alleged infringement of EP 4201327 (a patch-insulin pump patent). The Milan Local Division dismissed the application to intervene, holding that the efficiency of the interim proceedings and the applicant's interest in a speedy decision outweighed Eoflow's interest in intervening, particularly since Eoflow was already a defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Milan Central Division.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure filed by Xiaomi entities against an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The dispute centered on the extension of deadlines for the defendants' rejoinder (Duplik) under Rule 29(d) RoP in three patent infringement proceedings before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Xiaomi had not sufficiently demonstrated that the Local Chamber Mannheim incorrectly interpreted the Rules of Procedure or exceeded its discretionary powers.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action (UPC_CFI_164/2024) concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, applied for an order requiring the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, to provide security for legal costs. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) granted the application, finding credible evidence that Suinno's financial situation posed a real risk that any costs order would be unrecoverable, and ordered Suinno to provide security of EUR 300,000 within one month. The Court also declared inadmissible Suinno's counter-request seeking reciprocal security from Microsoft.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Volkswagen AG's request for rectification of a prior order that had directed Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in three related proceedings. Volkswagen sought to have the order rectified to include a notification under R.158.4 RoP that failure to provide security could result in a decision by default under R.355 RoP. The Court of Appeal declined rectification but issued a separate order providing the required notification to NST.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning notification pursuant to Rule 158.4 RoP in proceedings involving three European patents. Audi AG had requested rectification of a prior order that required NST to provide security for costs, seeking inclusion of a notification that failure to provide security could result in a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The Court declined to rectify the original order but provided the notification separately to NST.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The defendants (Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH) sought leave to file further written observations by October 28, 2024, in response to the Court of Appeal's order of September 25, 2024 in case UPC_CoA_182/2024. The presiding judge rejected the application, finding that the Court of Appeal's order provided no basis for allowing further pleadings in the main proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against Optoma entities before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534. Before the defendants' deadline to respond or file a counterclaim for revocation, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement. The defendants consented to the withdrawal and the plaintiff's cost proposals, and the court issued an order terminating the proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP3024163, owned by Panasonic Holdings Corporation, against ten Xiaomi entities. The defendants sought a stay of proceedings under Rule 295(l) and/or (m) RoP pending the UK High Court of Justice's decision on the final terms of a FRAND license agreement. The presiding judge and rapporteur referred the matter to the full panel, proposing that the decision be made during or after the already scheduled oral hearings in late November 2024 and late January 2025.
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 an infringement action based on European Patent No. 3 215 288. The plaintiffs sought to amend their claims under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure following the final judgment of the German Federal Patent Court, which had invalidated the device claim but maintained the use claim. The court largely allowed the amendments but rejected the addition of a claim for indirect infringement of the process claim, finding that this could have been brought with the original lawsuit.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the proper defendant for a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent No. 3 215 288 before the Local Chamber Munich. Vibrantz GmbH filed its revocation counterclaim against Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff 2), the registered patent proprietor, rather than against Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff 1), the undisputed substantive proprietor. The court rejected Heraeus Precious Metals' applications to dismiss the counterclaim as manifestly inadmissible, holding that under Rules 25.1, 42, and 8.6 RoP, a revocation counterclaim may validly be directed against the registered proprietor.