European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 55 of 67 · 1,592 total
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This UPC Order addressed a request for public access to documents in a revocation action, following the parties' settlement. The Court ruled that once proceedings conclude by agreement, the general interest in transparency outweighs concerns about procedural integrity. Access was granted to the written pleadings and evidence, but only after strict redactions were applied to protect confidential commercial information and personal data.
KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH v.BALLINNO B.V.
This UPC Central Division decision addressed a procedural application seeking to stay revocation proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal against a denial of provisional measures. The Court firmly rejected Ballinno B.V.'s request, emphasizing that allowing such indefinite delays would violate the fundamental right to effective legal protection and contradict the UPCA's goal of ensuring final hearings occur within one year. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining procedural efficiency and timely justice in revocation actions.
AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This decision from the UPC Board of Appeal addresses procedural matters concerning an appeal filed by Aylo companies against a prior local court order. The core issue was whether the parties could unilaterally submit additional arguments under Rule 9.1. The Board firmly rejected this interpretation, clarifying that all supplementary submissions must be approved by the presiding judge in accordance with Rules 36 and 220.4 of the UPC Rules of Procedure. This ruling reinforces strict procedural control within the UPC litigation framework.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning an order from the Court of First Instance that rejected Microsoft's application to declare Suinno's infringement action manifestly inadmissible. The court ruled that such orders, which deal with case management and procedural admissibility (R.361 RoP), are not subject to discretionary appeal under Rule 220.3 RoP. Instead, they must be challenged via an application for review by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request by Valeo Electrification to lift an existing confidentiality order concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Court upheld the protection of confidential information, classifying specific documents submitted by the Defendants (Magna entities) as trade secrets under Article 58 UPCA. Consequently, the Applicant's request to remove these restrictions was dismissed, reinforcing the importance of maintaining confidentiality in UPC proceedings.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Ona Patents SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the timing of written submissions in an ongoing patent dispute involving Apple and Ona Patents SL. The court strictly interpreted the Rules of Procedure, holding that requests for further pleadings must be filed before the rapporteur concludes the written phase and schedules the oral hearing. Consequently, the appellants' late submission was rejected, allowing the case to proceed as planned.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
This procedural order in the HPDC v LAMA infringement case addressed disputes over the scope of evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court strictly applied the Rules of Procedure, limiting what could be debated based on previous submissions. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to the structured phases of written proceedings within the UPC.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This UPC appeal addressed the scope of confidentiality protections and the inclusion of in-house counsel under Rule 262A RoP. The claimants argued that their respondents' US-based in-house patent attorneys posed an inherent risk of misusing confidential information for parallel litigation strategies, demanding a 'prosecution bar.' However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that abstract risks are insufficient to deny access if no concrete evidence of misconduct exists. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural necessity and expert involvement often outweigh theoretical confidentiality concerns in UPC proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
In this procedural order, the UPC dismissed a request by multiple defendants for security for legal costs against the US-based claimant. The Court emphasized that while protecting defendants is important, it cannot unduly restrict a claimant's right to an effective remedy. The ruling clarified that the mere fact of being non-EU based is insufficient grounds for imposing security if the claimant demonstrates financial capacity and willingness to cover adverse costs.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by the Defendants to stay infringement proceedings pending the outcome of an opposition filed at the EPO. The Court rejected the application, emphasizing that the primary legal basis for such a stay requires the expectation of a rapid final decision from the EPO. Given the likelihood of appeals following the opposition, the court determined that the condition for staying the case was not met, allowing the infringement action to proceed.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning provisional measures granted by the CFI. The core issue was whether the CFI's finding that Ireland was a Contracting Member State justified granting the injunction there. The court ruled this reasoning was manifestly erroneous, as Ireland had not ratified the UPCA. Consequently, it partially granted the request for suspensive effect only regarding the Irish territory.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addresses the resumption of a complex infringement and revocation action after the UPC proceedings were stayed pending a decision from the EPO Boards of Appeal (TBA). The Court established a tailored timetable, granting the claimant 14 days to file an amended statement of claim and the defendants 42 days to respond with their amended defense and counterclaim for revocation. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines when external decisions significantly alter the scope of the patent-in-suit.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC; Arvato Netherlands B.V.; Digital River Ireland Ltd.
In this preliminary injunction proceeding, Ericsson sought to proceed despite alleged non-compliance by its opponents with disclosure rules (R. 13.1(h) RoP). The defendants argued that the lack of full documentation from prior proceedings harmed their defense. However, the UPC Court ultimately dismissed the defendants' request, finding that R. 13.1(h) only requires information about the existence of prior actions, not the exhaustive disclosure of all associated evidence like pleadings or expert reports. This decision clarifies the scope of procedural compliance in urgent provisional measures cases.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC preliminary procedure case involved a dispute over evidence production between 10x Genomics and Vizgen concerning the EP patent EP4108782. The defendant, Vizgen, sought various documents from both claimants to support its contractual and competition law defenses. The court partially granted the request, compelling the claimants to produce a specific license agreement related to FISSEQ technology. This decision highlights the interplay between UPC evidence rules and limitations imposed by parallel US litigation protective orders.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order addressed a request for protection of confidential information filed by the Defendants in an infringement action. The UPC Court granted the confidentiality request, recognizing that sensitive details regarding negotiations and FRAND Counterclaims required protection. This decision reinforces the mechanism available under the UPCA to safeguard trade secrets during litigation. For patent practitioners, this case highlights the importance of adhering strictly to procedural rules (Rule 262A RoP) when seeking confidential treatment for information.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order addressed a request for protection of confidential information filed by several TCL entities in an infringement action against NEC Corporation. The UPC Court confirmed the confidentiality status of sensitive documents related to FRAND negotiations and counterclaims. The ruling sets out strict rules governing who can access this proprietary data, ensuring that it is only used within the scope of the litigation. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms available under the UPCA for protecting trade secrets during complex patent disputes.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, AUDI AG
Network System Technologies LLC successfully withdrew its infringement action against Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH following a settlement, as permitted under UPC Rule 265 RoP. The court formally closed these proceedings while leaving the claims against Volkswagen AG and AUDI AG unaffected. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties reach private settlements.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the proper filing of exhibits and the extension of deadlines in an infringement action involving NEC Corporation against various TCL entities. The Defendants argued that procedural errors, such as the exhibit replacement request not being filed by the strictly designated CMS representative, warranted a full deadline extension. However, the UPC Panel rejected this argument, emphasizing the general duty to support proceedings and the need for efficient case management. The Court confirmed that while flexibility exists in representation (Rule 8.2 RoP), procedural extensions must be used cautiously. The ruling reinforces the principle that parties cannot benefit from their own non-compliance with procedural duties.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. initiated an infringement lawsuit against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning EP 3 339 920 B1. However, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently filed a request to withdraw the claim. The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal, formally ending the proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can lead to the dismissal of UPC infringement actions.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.
This UPC decision addresses a request for public access to case files by a third party (DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.). The court analyzed the balance between the applicant's interest in obtaining documents and the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing infringement proceedings. Ultimately, the court denied the access request, emphasizing that procedural fairness and confidentiality must prevail over speculative or indirect interests.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS
In a complex infringement case involving AGFA NV and the Gucci group, the UPC Local Division issued a critical procedural order granting confidentiality protection to sensitive business information. The defendants successfully argued that their internal supply chain data, sales figures, and quality control metrics constituted trade secrets under EU law. This ruling is significant as it establishes clear boundaries for evidence disclosure in high-stakes luxury goods litigation within the UPC framework.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
In a procedural decision, the UPC dismissed a revocation action brought by Aiko Energy against Maxeon Solar concerning EP 3065184. The claimant withdrew the claim before it was formally served upon the defendant. The court confirmed that this withdrawal had no legal effect on the defendant and closed the proceedings accordingly. Furthermore, the Claimant was granted reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees paid.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited , Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural order concerning confidential information, the UPC Local Division Munich balanced the need for parties' effective legal representation against the protection of trade secrets. The Court granted the Defendants' request to classify certain internal documents as strictly confidential, limiting access only to named representatives and employees. This ruling reinforces the principle that while lawyers require necessary access, accountability must be maintained by clearly defining who is responsible for maintaining confidentiality.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the effective date of service for an appeal statement in a pharmaceutical patent case (EP 3167888). The core issue was whether direct communication between parties via specialized electronic mailboxes ('beA') could count as valid service. The court definitively ruled that only service effected by the Registry through the official CMS is considered effective under UPC rules.