European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 53 of 84 · 2,007 total
Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the confirmation of an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices. The Court of Appeal rejected Mammut's appeal, finding that Ortovox had not engaged in unreasonable delay in seeking interim measures and that the requirements for provisional relief were met. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and to pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices (LVS-Geräte). Ortovox had obtained an ex parte interim injunction against Mammut before the Local Division Düsseldorf, which was confirmed on review. Mammut appealed the confirmation, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Mammut had waited too long before seeking review and that the interim measures were justified. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Unilever France v.I.G.B. S.r.l.
Procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning a request by Unilever France to modify its claims regarding ancillary measures in an infringement action brought by I.G.B. S.r.l. relating to European patent EP3997002. The court held that Rule 263 RoP did not apply because Unilever's modifications concerned only the modalities of execution of ancillary measures and did not alter the object or scope of the dispute.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in SEP/FRAND litigation. OPPO and OROPE appealed the Local Division Mannheim's refusal to order Panasonic to produce various license agreements. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could change at a later stage.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Ex Parte
Procedural Order
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Chamber Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that, at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, but left open the possibility that a different assessment could be reached at a later stage when FRAND-related issues are addressed.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under R.190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that at the current stage of the proceedings, where the question of basic licensing willingness had not yet been decided, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could differ at a later stage.
SWAT Medical AB and Erik Krahbichler v.Meril Italy srl, Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The applicants, SWAT Medical AB and its board member Erik Krahbichler, sought access under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure to all written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 4 151 181 between the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The presiding judge-rapporteur rejected the application, holding that operating in the same field as the patent was insufficient to establish a specific interest and that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicants' general interest in information.
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1 regarding the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the Rejoinder and specific exhibits as confidential and restricted access to designated representatives of the Applicant, Valeo Electrification. The court denied the Applicant's request to grant access to an additional lawyer, Thierry Lautier, who was not actively involved in the proceedings.
KIPA AB - Request for Access to Pleadings and Evidence (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited and Others)
KIPA AB filed a request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to access written pleadings and evidence in proceedings concerning EP 2 628 464 B1, a patent owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation relating to prosthetic heart valves. Both the claimant and defendants opposed the request, arguing it lacked a concrete and legitimate reason and that the applicant's company (SWAT Medical AB) operated in an unrelated field. The Court of First Instance rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's general interest in accessing the materials.
KIPA AB - Request for Access to Pleadings and Evidence (UPC_CFI_8/2023) v.Ex Parte
This procedural order concerns a request by KIPA AB (with co-applicant SWAT Medical AB) for access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (claimant) and Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited and others (defendants) concerning EP 2 628 464. Both the claimant and defendants opposed the request. The Court rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in obtaining access at that stage, while granting leave to appeal.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Volkswagen AG's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to dismiss infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Volkswagen had raised preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and the validity of opt-out withdrawals, and had sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP on grounds that NST lacked standing and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to defer preliminary objections to the main proceedings, and that Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and does not require a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
KIPA AB v.Ex Parte
This procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by KIPA AB (along with co-applicant SWAT Medical AB) for access to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (claimant) and Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited and others (defendants) concerning EP 2 628 464. The applicant sought access as a member of the public and competitor in the cardiac implant technology field. The Court rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in obtaining access at that stage, while granting leave to appeal.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the President of the Court of First Instance that had rejected Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 263 098. The Court of Appeal held that fairness required English to be used as the language of proceedings, given that the patent was granted in English, Apple's internal working language and technical support were in English, and Ona Patents would not face any disadvantage from a change to English.
KIPA AB - Request for Access to Pleadings and Evidence (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited et al.)
An applicant (identified as KIPA AB) requested access to all written pleadings and evidence in proceedings concerning EP 2 628 464 B1, a patent owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Both the Claimant and Defendants opposed the request, arguing it lacked specificity and a credible legitimate interest. The Court of First Instance rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in accessing the materials, while granting leave to appeal.
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
Google appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court that rejected its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2 263 098). The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the President CFI had incorrectly assessed fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA, and ordered that English be used as the language of the proceedings.
KIPA AB (Application for Access to Pleadings and Evidence in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited et al.)
This procedural order concerns an application by KIPA AB under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in patent infringement proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited et al. concerning EP2628464. Both the Claimant and Defendants opposed the request, arguing it was overly broad and lacked a credible, specific justification. The Court rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's general interest in obtaining access, while granting leave to appeal.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Audi AG's appeal against orders of the Munich Local Division that had dismissed Audi's preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP in three parallel patent infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Audi had argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over damages claimed in the UK and Northern Ireland, that the opt-out withdrawal was invalid due to lack of power of attorney, that NST lacked standing for pre-acquisition damages, and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the timing of preliminary objection decisions is within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and not for evaluating the sufficiency of claim substantiation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order concerns Dexcom's request to amend its counter claim for revocation in proceedings involving EP 4 070 727 B1. After Abbott withdrew part of its infringement claim regarding the Dexcom G7-System with a G7-Receiver, Dexcom sought to add a declaration of non-infringement for that product combination. The Judge-Rapporteur granted leave to amend, finding Dexcom could not reasonably have filed the amendment earlier, and allowed Abbott 30 days to respond.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in an underlying infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, sought panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order rejecting its application to have the claimant's action declared manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order, holding that the alleged lack of independence of the claimant's representative and the alleged insufficiency of the statement of claim did not meet the threshold of 'manifest' inadmissibility. The panel also declined to grant leave to appeal or refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Access under R. 262.1(b) RoP – Ballinno B.V. v.UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH)
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to the written pleadings and evidence filed in a concluded provisional measures proceeding (Ballinno B.V. v UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) concerning EP1944067. The Defendants did not oppose access but requested that grey-highlighted technical data be kept confidential as trade secrets. The Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) granted the application, providing access to redacted versions of the substantive filings while ordering that the highlighted technical information be treated as strictly confidential.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Audi AG's applications for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court held that NST, a small US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity with only two employees, no physical assets, and limited funding, failed to provide sufficient comfort that a possible cost order would be recoverable. The Court ordered NST to provide security for costs in amounts of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000, and EUR 300,000 in the three related proceedings, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank, within three weeks of service.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected the plaintiff's application to examine its own party expert as a witness in the oral hearing concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff sought the examination after the close of the interim proceedings, arguing that the deadline for its reply on the FRAND counterclaim was insufficient to address the opposing party's expert opinion. The court held that the application was procedurally improper and that the named person was not to be examined as a witness but rather to present expert opinions, which is not permissible under the Rules of Procedure.
Dexcom International Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of the Court of First Instance in The Hague concerning a counter claim for revocation related to European Patent EP 4 070 727 B1. Dexcom sought leave to amend their counter claim to add a declaration of non-infringement regarding the Dexcom G7-System used with the G7-Receiver, following Abbott's withdrawal of that portion of its infringement claim. The Judge-Rapporteur granted leave to amend, finding Dexcom could not reasonably have filed the amendment earlier, and allowed Abbott 30 days to respond.