European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 53 of 67 · 1,592 total
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC decision, while addressing procedural matters related to confidentiality and representative independence, confirms that certain contractual information qualifies as a protected business secret under EU law. The panel set aside the initial secrecy order but granted leave to appeal due to the novelty of the issue concerning representative independence before the UPC. This case highlights the intersection between trade secret protection and complex procedural rules within the Unified Patent Court framework.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In this appeal concerning security for costs, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the financial vulnerability of a patent enforcement entity (NST) versus a large corporate defendant (Volkswagen). The court ruled that while the relative size of the parties is not a determining factor, the requesting party must provide concrete evidence of an actual risk of non-recoverability or unenforceability. Consequently, the previous order was set aside, and NST was ordered to post security for costs in specific amounts.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a complex jurisdictional and procedural issue concerning the interplay between national revocation proceedings (in Germany) and an action before the Unified Patent Court. The court confirmed that while the parties in the German and UPC actions were distinct, necessitating the rejection of Mala's primary request to decline jurisdiction, it ultimately granted the crucial auxiliary request for a stay. This ruling provides significant guidance on when procedural fairness requires the UPC to pause proceedings pending outcomes in parallel national litigation.
Dexcom International Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action against EP4070727, the UPC granted Dexcom International Limited leave to amend its counterclaim. Dexcom sought a declaration that their G7-System and G7-Receiver did not infringe the patent after Abbott narrowed its initial claims. The court ruled in favor of Dexcom, accepting that they could not have reasonably anticipated Abbott's claim withdrawal at the outset, thereby allowing them to seek legal certainty regarding non-infringement.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this procedural matter, Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought permission to call its expert witness as a formal witness during the oral hearing concerning a FRAND counterclaim. The Mannheim Local Division denied the request, emphasizing that once the interim proceedings are formally concluded, further substantive requests are highly restricted under UPC rules. The court also clarified that an expert's role is to present specialized opinions, which differs fundamentally from providing testimony on disputed facts.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical issue of security for costs in complex patent litigation. The court ruled that while the burden is on the requesting party to prove financial risk, the relative wealth of the parties is not determinative. It affirmed that a special purpose entity's business model (like NST) cannot be unfairly penalized by demanding excessive security. This ruling provides important guidance on balancing procedural fairness with cost recovery in UPC proceedings.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a request by the public (Powell Gilbert LLP) seeking access to documents filed in an earlier application for provisional measures. The Court balanced the principle of public scrutiny against the protection of trade secrets. While granting general access to pleadings, the Court strictly enforced confidentiality rules, requiring redaction of highly sensitive technical data belonging to the Defendants.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In this case management order, Microsoft Corporation challenged a previous decision regarding the manifest inadmissibility of its infringement action. The UPC Panel upheld the initial rejection, ruling that the alleged lack of independence of the claimant's representative was not 'manifest' enough to warrant dismissal under Rule 361 RoP. Furthermore, the court found that the statement of claim sufficiently addressed the request for damages. This decision reinforces the high threshold required for declaring an action manifestly inadmissible in UPC proceedings.
Dexcom International Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the UPC granted Dexcom International Limited leave to amend its counter claim. The amendment sought a declaration that the G7-System and G7-Receiver fall outside the scope of protection of EP 4070727 B1. The court found that Dexcom's timing was reasonable, as they were responding to Abbott's subsequent withdrawal of claims against those specific products, setting a precedent for procedural flexibility in UPC litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for a complex UPC case involving Panasonic and various Xiaomi entities regarding EP 2 568 724. The court has meticulously structured the oral proceedings, dedicating the first day to technical issues like patent validity and infringement, and the second day to the critical FRAND licensing framework. This detailed planning highlights the complexity of modern SEP litigation within the UPC.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Central Division granted a decision by default in favor of Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) against ITCCiCo Spain S.L., leading to the revocation of EP 2 796 333. The patent, which covers speed detection and warning systems for vehicles, was invalidated based on lack of novelty and inventive step. This case underscores the strict procedural requirements within the UPC, where failure by a defendant to respond promptly can result in an adverse judgment.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited et al.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical issue of security for costs in patent litigation. The court upheld the requirement that a claimant provide adequate financial guarantees to cover potential legal expenses if they lose the case. Despite presenting an insurance policy, the court found it insufficient because its purpose was to protect the insured party (ICPillar), not the applicant (ARM). Furthermore, the court rejected ICPillar's request for a US-licensed bank guarantee, emphasizing that security requirements are based on substantive grounds, not discrimination.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for complex oral hearings in UPC case UPC_CFI_210/2023. The proceedings are highly structured, dedicating one day to technical infringement and validity issues, and a second day to the critical FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) aspects of the dispute. Given the involvement of OPPO and Panasonic, this case is significant for understanding how the UPC manages intertwined technical disputes with complex antitrust/FRAND claims.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung), the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf decided to consolidate the proceedings between Grundfos Holding A/S and Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court ruled that it would jointly examine both the infringement claim brought by Grundfos and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu. This decision aims to enhance procedural efficiency, ensuring a unified legal interpretation across both claims.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated initiated proceedings at the UPC to annul a decision made by the European Patent Office regarding patent EP3516914. However, the EPO subsequently rectified the contested decision in line with Qualcomm's request. Consequently, the Court of First Instance closed the action without further deliberation or consultation of the parties. This case highlights the procedural mechanism within the UPC for handling actions against decisions of the EPO when those decisions are corrected by the Office.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Stephen George Edrich, Cooper Marc Gary, McKenna Paul John
In this UPC case, Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin and associated entities for infringing its patent EP 2 867 997 B1 concerning wireless inductive power transfer systems. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent by the defendants' products. Furthermore, the defendants' counterclaims seeking to invalidate the patent were also rejected. This decision reaffirms the scope and validity of the asserted technology while concluding that the specific accused products do not meet the criteria for infringement.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. s.p.a.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH successfully obtained a provisional measure from the UPC Local Division in Milan, securing an order to preserve evidence and inspect premises of Danieli Group companies. The applicant sought this ex-parte order based on strong suspicion that the defendants' products infringed EP 2624977, which covers drivers for steel strip coiling installations. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's willingness to grant early investigative measures when a clear prima facie case of infringement and patent validity exists.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues arising from a patent infringement suit filed by Headwater Research LLC against several Motorola and Flextronics entities. The core dispute centered on the incorrect initial naming of one defendant, 'Lenovo EMEA DC,' which was later corrected to 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.' The court ruled that this error did not bar the proceedings but instead ordered a formal correction of the name and address in the case file. Furthermore, the court granted an application to update the registered business address for another defendant.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed an issue where the claimant initially misidentified one of its defendants as 'Lenovo EMEA DC' instead of 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.'. The respondents argued that this error rendered the claim inadmissible against that party. However, the court found that this was merely a naming error and not a fatal procedural defect. Consequently, the court corrected the defendant's name and address, ordered re-service of the claim, and allowed the infringement proceedings to continue.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a procedural dispute concerning deadlines in parallel UPC proceedings involving Xiaomi and Panasonic. The defendants sought an extension of time for their Duplik, arguing that delays caused by confidentiality orders prevented timely preparation. However, the court rejected this request, maintaining that while delayed access must be compensated, it does not automatically entitle the parties to the full statutory period. This ruling reinforces the principle of efficient case management within the UPC framework.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Stephen George Edrich; Belkin GmbH; Belkin International, Inc; Belkin Limited; Marc Gary Cooper; Paul John McKenna
This UPC decision is a procedural order concerning the infringement case involving Philips IP Ventures B.V. against several defendants, including Belkin GmbH. The core issue addressed was the request to postpone the oral hearing due to parallel proceedings and process efficiency considerations. The court granted this request, rescheduling the hearing for October 23, 2024. This highlights the UPC's procedural mechanisms allowing parties and the court to manage complex litigation schedules.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In a significant preliminary order, the UPC Local Division Hamburg rejected the request by Tandem Diabetes Care to stay an infringement action concerning its t:slim X2 insulin pump. The court emphasized the efficiency of the UPC system, stating that it is appropriate for the local division to hear both the infringement claim and the pending revocation actions simultaneously. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural delays should not impede the pursuit of patent rights when a joint hearing can ensure a uniform legal outcome.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Oclean) in the UPC regarding its electric toothbrush patent EP3197316. The case centered on whether Oclean's toothbrushes infringed claims related to providing motivational feedback based on brushing data. Although the court granted the immediate cessation order, it stipulated that main proceedings must be initiated promptly, highlighting the procedural requirements for provisional measures in UPC litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC infringement case between Huawei and Netgear, the court issued an order revoking a previous decision to appoint a translation expert. The revocation was based on the parties' mutual agreement that critical Chinese-language documents related to the patent were identical. This procedural step simplifies the ongoing litigation, allowing the case to proceed without the need for external linguistic verification.