European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 54 of 67 · 1,592 total
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.
Novartis AG v.Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft.
In this UPC case concerning a pharmaceutical formulation patent (EP 3 805 248 B1), Novartis and Genentech sought provisional measures against the Celltrion group, alleging imminent infringement. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the application for provisional measures. The court determined that since no prior order had been issued, the requirements for interim relief under Rule 213.1 RoP were not met. This decision highlights the strict procedural prerequisites required before a party can seek urgent protective measures in UPC proceedings.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed requests for the expedition of appeals concerning the validity of European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to a prosthetic heart valve. The court ultimately rejected Meril's pleas for an expedited timeline. The ruling reinforces that procedural concerns regarding potential injunction risks must be managed through existing mechanisms within the UPC, rather than solely relying on accelerated timetables.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addressed requests for expedition in multiple appeals concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent covering a prosthetic heart valve. The court ultimately rejected Meril's pleas to accelerate the proceedings, citing that existing legal mechanisms could manage the risks associated with pending validity challenges. This decision reinforces the standard procedural timetable of the UPC unless exceptional circumstances are met.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
This UPC decision addressed a request by the Defendant, Aarke AB, to impose security for legal costs against the Claimant, SodaStream Industries Ltd., in an ongoing infringement action. The Court of First Instance dismissed the panel review application, confirming that the initial judge-rapporteur correctly found no sufficient grounds (financial risk or unenforceability) to mandate security. This ruling reinforces the standard that financial capability and lack of evidence regarding bad faith are key factors when assessing cost security requests in UPC proceedings.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding jurisdiction within the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Advanced Bionics sought to transfer an infringement case to the Central Board to coordinate proceedings with a parallel revocation action. The UPC Appeals Board rejected this request, emphasizing that Article 33 of the EPC mandates party consent for such a jurisdictional shift. This ruling reinforces the strict adherence to procedural rules over convenience in managing complex litigation.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH; S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG sought provisional measures against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, alleging that their product infringed on EP 3 685 783 B1 related to laser fibers for vein treatment. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately denied the request for an injunction. The court found that the claimant did not meet the necessary threshold of demonstrating exceptional harm or irreparable damage required for provisional relief, despite the long-standing competition.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed an application by Advanced Bionics to change the proceedings language from German to English, matching the patent's language. The court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while factors like industry standard language (English) and the patent language are considered, they do not override considerations such as parties' domicile and existing procedural arrangements. This case reinforces the UPC's discretionary approach to language changes, requiring a careful balancing of interests rather than relying solely on technical or commercial convenience.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC addressed a request for confidentiality protection. The Court granted access restrictions on specific technical and business information submitted by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., classifying it as confidential. While rejecting the defendant's motion that all highlighted portions were secret, the ruling established strict rules governing who could view this sensitive data. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to balancing urgent proceedings with robust protection of proprietary information.
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 Division addresses procedural requests made by Xiaomi regarding confidentiality protections for third-party license agreements related to EP 2568724. The court denied Xiaomi's request for enhanced access restrictions and preliminary injunctions against a former defendant. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural timelines, stating that parties must act early when seeking complex protective measures like those under Rule 262A VerfO.
AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This UPC appeal decision addresses complex issues of international jurisdiction in patent infringement cases involving internet-based services. The court provided a clear interpretation of how Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation applies to digital infringement, stating that potential damage can arise from accessing services within the member state where the patent is effective. This ruling provides significant guidance for practitioners dealing with cross-border streaming and software patents.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought to expand its infringement lawsuit against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH to include OTECH Germany GmbH. The UPC Local Division of Munich rejected the request for party change, citing procedural issues and process economics. While the claimant argued lack of prior knowledge regarding OTECH's activities, the court maintained that the delay was not justifiable and suggested a new separate action could be filed if necessary.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This procedural order addressed an application by Magna entities seeking to replace the allocated technically qualified judge (TQJ) in a provisional measures case against Valeo. Magna argued for a TQJ with specific mechanical engineering expertise. The UPC President dismissed this request, clarifying that parties are generally bound to their appointed judges and cannot object based merely on technical background unless grounds of partiality exist under Article 7.4 UPCA. This decision reinforces the strict procedural rules governing judge allocation within the Unified Patent Court.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In this UPC decision, Avago Technologies sued Tesla regarding the infringement of EP 1 838 002, a patent covering programmable hybrid transmitters. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Tesla, declaring the patent invalid for Germany because its claims were anticipated by prior art (D3). This ruling not only dismissed the infringement claim but also established a significant precedent regarding the enforceability of patents facing strong prior art challenges within the UPC framework.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH; Netgear Inc.; Netgear International Limited
Huawei Technologies initiated an infringement action against Netgear entities regarding the Wi-Fi 6 standard, asserting ownership of EP 3 611 989, which is declared essential for the standard. The defendants raised multiple counterclaims, including invalidity and non-infringement arguments. The UPC Local Division in Munich issued a procedural order setting the case for oral hearings in October 2024 and appointing an expert to translate complex technical documents, indicating that the case will proceed to detailed examination.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In this UPC procedural order, Ona Patents SL successfully sought protection for confidential information against Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries. The court confirmed that sensitive data, including internal profit margins and specific technical details about product functionalities, qualifies as a trade secret under Article 58 EPC. This ruling reinforces the scope of trade secret protection in the UPC, clarifying that even negative statements or limited access to specialized knowledge can warrant confidentiality.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Hand Held Products sought an injunction against Scandit AG for infringing EP 3 866 051, a patent covering digital scanning devices. The Munich Local Court analyzed the possibility of indirect infringement stemming from the software library. Ultimately, the court denied the request for interim measures, finding that the complexity and variability in hardware/software configuration prevented the necessary certainty required to establish direct liability against the respondent.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited
This UPC decision addresses critical procedural aspects within an application for provisional measures concerning a herbicide composition patent. The court clarified the burden of proof for product claims, stating that applicants do not need to prove why the composition has all features, only that it does or will. It also set strict limits on validity challenges in summary proceedings, requiring respondents to narrow their arguments to three key points. These rulings provide important guidance for practitioners navigating urgent infringement actions at the UPC.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P v.Lama France
This procedural order addressed a request by Hewlett-Packard Development Company (HPDC) to call a witness in its infringement action against Lama France. While the court granted the request for the witness to testify orally in English, it rejected Lama's plea for simultaneous interpretation between French and English. The ruling emphasizes the practical application of UPC rules regarding language proficiency and procedural economy.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Ballinno B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an appeal proceeding concerning EP 1 944 067. The Kinexon companies and UEFA successfully argued that the respondent, Ballinno B.V., lacked sufficient financial means to guarantee the reimbursement of legal expenses. Consequently, the court mandated Ballinno to provide € 25,000 in security for costs. This ruling reinforces the UPC's ability to manage litigation risk by ensuring that parties with questionable financial standing can be required to secure their potential cost obligations.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holdings ApS
The provided document snippet lacks any substantive information regarding the dispute. It only contains signatures and dates from August 26, 2024. Therefore, no analysis of the case's significance or legal implications can be performed.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH a.o.
This UPC decision between Avago Technologies and Tesla addresses critical procedural aspects of a complex infringement and revocation case concerning power control systems used in vehicles. The court clarified that initial delays due to CMS workflow usage are acceptable, providing flexibility early in the proceedings. Crucially, it affirmed the principle of partial revocation under Article 65(3) EPC, meaning claims can be invalidated selectively rather than requiring total patent destruction.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, aligning it with the patent's granted language. The Court found that despite initial objections regarding admissibility and local business requirements, the balance of interests favored the defendants. The ruling emphasizes that in cases involving multinational entities, the practical needs for coordination often outweigh the general rule favoring the claimant's convenience.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
Ericsson successfully sought leave to amend its preliminary injunction application in the UPC, specifically adjusting the scope of liability concerning Arvato's role as a service intermediary. The Court granted this amendment, allowing Ericsson to proceed with direct infringement claims against ASUSTek and Digital River Ireland while limiting Arvato's liability under Article 62(1) UPCA. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex supply chain litigation by allowing claimants to refine their legal theories based on factual developments.