European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 54 of 84 · 2,007 total
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This appeal concerned a dispute over European patent EP 2 044 709 B1, which had effect only in Germany. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that while Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply to UPC proceedings during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, they did not require the UPC to decline jurisdiction because the German revocation action and the UPC proceedings did not involve the same parties. However, the Court of Appeal granted Mala's auxiliary request to stay the UPC revocation proceedings pending a final decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the parallel German revocation proceedings.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Volkswagen AG's requests for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity. The Court held that NST's failure to provide sufficient comfort regarding its ability to cover potential cost orders justified ordering security, and that the relative financial positions of the parties are not a criterion under R.158 RoP. NST was ordered to provide security of EUR 100,000 in two cases and EUR 300,000 in the third, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank within three weeks.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court reviewed a confidentiality order issued in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. While the panel agreed that the documents (a patent license agreement and a patent purchase & licence agreement) contained business secrets worthy of protection, it set aside the confidentiality order because the respondent's representative was simultaneously its managing director and main shareholder, lacking the independence required under Article 48(5) of the UPCA and Article 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct. The application for confidentiality was declared inadmissible, though those already admitted to the confidentiality ring remained bound by non-disclosure obligations, and leave to appeal was granted.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This order concerns procedural applications filed in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 4 151 181. The applicants (Meril entities) sought to have the respondent's (Edwards Lifesciences) counterclaim for infringement declared inadmissible as it was filed after the two-month deadline under Rule 49 of the Rules of Procedure. The judge-rapporteur rejected the application and retrospectively extended the deadline to 23 July 2024 under Rule 9(3)(a) RoP, finding that technical issues with the CMS constituted exceptional circumstances beyond the respondent's reasonable control.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order concerns Oerlikon's application under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure to file an eighth auxiliary request (AR8) to amend European Patent EP 2 145 848 B1 in infringement proceedings against Himson Engineering. The court refused the application, finding that AR8 was not an effective response to the new prior art attack based on US '795, could have been introduced earlier with respect to DE '042, was not capable of influencing the outcome, and violated Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC.
Anonymous Claimant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Court of First Instance, Local Division Brussels) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 331 036. Following an Interim Conference, the court addressed settlement prospects, evidence offers, the value of the case, and guidelines for the oral hearing. The court determined the value of the case at €250,000, rejected one evidence offer as moot, and set detailed procedural directions for the upcoming oral hearing.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court on September 16, 2024, in case UPC_CFI_210/2023 concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, sets out preparations for the oral hearing, including scheduling, hearing structure, participation logistics, language arrangements, and the value in dispute. The value in dispute was set at over 50 million euros, taking into account the defendants' FRAND counterclaim and the plaintiff's related applications.
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 is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court on September 16, 2024, in preparation for the oral hearing in case UPC_CFI_219/2023 concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff Panasonic Holdings Corporation is pursuing infringement claims against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies. The order sets out the structure of the hearing, covering technical aspects (including validity and infringement) on the first day and FRAND-related issues on the second day, along with logistical arrangements for participation, language, and submissions.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed a revocation action against ITCiCo Spain S.L. concerning European patent EP 2 796 333, which relates to a graded control signal system for warning a vehicle user of speeding conditions. After the defendant failed to file a defence within the prescribed time limit and its request for an extension of time was rejected, BMW requested a decision by default. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) granted the default decision, revoked the patent in its entirety for lacking novelty and inventive step over prior art, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited & Others
ICPillar LLC appealed a Court of First Instance order requiring it to provide security for costs (EUR 400,000) in its patent infringement action against ARM entities before the Paris Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the Insurance Policy submitted for the first time on appeal would be disregarded under R.222.2 RoP, and that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank did not constitute adequate security under R.158 RoP.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Paris Central Division) seeking annulment of a decision of the European Patent Office dated 10 July 2024. The EPO subsequently rectified the contested decision in accordance with Qualcomm's request during interlocutory revision. The court closed the case without prior consultation of the parties and without ordering reimbursement of the action fee.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc. and Others
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 B1 concerning wireless inductive power transfer. The Local Chamber Munich found that Belkin's Qi-standard compliant wireless chargers infringed the patent, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaims for invalidity. The court ordered injunctions, information disclosure, and provisional damages of EUR 119,000, but limited the territorial scope to exclude acts within Germany.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court decided, pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by Grundfos Holding A/S and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. jointly before the same panel.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court addressed whether the originally named fifth defendant, 'Lenovo EMEA DC,' was a party capable of being sued, and whether the plaintiff could correct the designation to Flextronics International Europe B.V. The court held that 'Lenovo EMEA DC' was a non-existent entity, not merely a misnomer, and ordered a party correction by analogous application of Rule 305 RoP, while also requiring re-service of the complaint to the corrected fifth defendant.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH (PTA), proprietor of European Patent EP 2624977 relating to a driver for a steel strip coiling installation, filed an ex parte application before the Local Division in Milan of the Unified Patent Court seeking an order to preserve evidence and inspect the premises of Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A. PTA alleged that a driver manufactured by the Danieli group and installed at Nucor Steel Gallatin in Kentucky, US, infringed claims of EP977. The Court granted the order, authorizing inspection of the defendants' premises, seizure of relevant documentation, and appointment of an expert, subject to a security deposit of 25,000 Euros.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 110 069. The court addressed whether the claimant's naming of 'Lenovo EMEA DC' as Defendant 5 constituted a mere misnomer or the naming of a non-existent party, and whether the case heading could be corrected to substitute 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.' The court applied Rule 305 RoP by analogy to correct the party designation but held that no effective service had been made, requiring re-service and granting the corrected Defendant 5 the full period to respond.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH et al.
This case concerns a review under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. The defendants (multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies) sought review of the reporting judge's order that only partially extended their deadline to file a rejoinder (Duplik) to the plaintiff's reply (Replik) on non-technical (FRAND) aspects. The court rejected the defendants' application, holding that the granted extension was adequate and that the full two-month period does not automatically restart from the date access to unredacted confidential information is granted.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought a preliminary injunction from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 197 316 B1, which relates to an oral cleaning system with motivation feedback for electric toothbrushes. Despite having previously issued a cease and desist declaration, the respondent was found to be exhibiting the infringing 'Oclean' toothbrush models at IFA 2024 in Berlin. The court granted the preliminary measures, ordering the respondent to cease offering and distributing the infringing products, imposing penalties of up to 250,000 EUR per violation, and requiring handover of infringing products at the trade fair.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought interim injunctive relief against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of European Patent EP 3 197 316 B1, which covers an oral cleaning system (electric toothbrush) providing motivational feedback to users. After Yunding had previously given a cease and desist declaration acknowledging infringement but was found still exhibiting the infringing 'Oclean' toothbrushes at IFA 2024 in Berlin, the Local Chamber Hamburg granted the interim measures, ordering Yunding to cease offering, selling, importing, and possessing the infringing products across UPC member states, with penalties of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. The order revokes a prior direction appointing a translation expert after the parties agreed that the defendants' submitted translation could be used and that the relevant Chinese-language priority and application documents were identical with respect to the passages relevant to the dispute.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH & F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., & VitalAire GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 196 231, brought by Roche against Tandem Diabetes Care and VitalAire relating to the t:slim X2 insulin pump. The defendants sought a stay of the infringement proceedings pending parallel revocation actions before the Central Division Paris. The Local Division Hamburg dismissed both the request for a stay and the claimant's request to hear the infringement and revocation actions together, finding that the claimant's interest in continuing the proceedings outweighed the defendants' interest in a stay.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Stephen George Edrich, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc, Belkin Limited, Marc Gary Cooper, Paul John McKenna
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 2 372 863. The plaintiff, Philips IP Ventures B.V., requested postponement of the oral hearing originally scheduled for September 11, 2024, due to a rescheduled decision announcement in a parallel proceeding. The defendants consented, and the presiding judge granted the request, moving the hearing to October 23, 2024.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB (EP 1 793 917)
This case concerns a panel review of an order dismissing a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Defendant, Aarke AB, sought security of EUR 400,000, arguing that enforcement of a UPC cost order in Israel would be impossible or unduly burdensome due to the reciprocity requirement under Israeli law. The panel dismissed the application for review, finding that the Claimant (part of the PepsiCo group) was financially capable of complying with a cost order and that no sufficient facts supported a likelihood of unenforceability, while granting leave to appeal.
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. v.Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc.
Order