European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 57 of 84 · 2,007 total
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, and TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The sole issue addressed in this order was whether proper service had been effected on Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.), which is domiciled in China. The Court held that service was validly completed on 11 May 2024, accepting the defendant's own statement as proof of service.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against several Xiaomi entities, including Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. (based in China), and Xiaomi H.K. Limited (based in Hong Kong). Panasonic sought to serve these Asian Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, a sister company within the same corporate group. The Court of Appeal dismissed Panasonic's appeal, holding that a defendant company in China or Hong Kong cannot be served through a group company in a contracting member state without further justification, and that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention must generally be made before alternative service methods can be employed.
Orbisk B.V. v.Winnow Solutions Limited
Procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning an infringement action over EP 3 198 245 B1. The judge-rapporteur granted Orbisk B.V. an extension until 6 September 2024 to file its reply to Winnow Solutions Limited's Rule 190 RoP request for evidence production, rejecting Orbisk's request to align the reply deadline with its Statement of Defence.
Manfred Sauer GmbH & Manfred Sauer v.Qufora A/S
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a request by the defendants (Applicants) to dispense with translation of German-language exhibits filed in patent infringement proceedings relating to European patent EP 2 911 727. The Court dismissed the request, holding that the panel as a whole lacked sufficient German language skills and that the number, scope, and nature of the eleven exhibits made it disproportionate to waive the translation requirement. The Applicants had already filed machine translations as an auxiliary measure, thereby complying with Rule 7(1) RoP.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
Motorola Mobility LLC filed a patent infringement action against Ericsson entities before the Local Division Munich regarding European Patent EP 3 342 086. Motorola subsequently applied for leave to amend its claims to add requests for injunctive relief, recall, permanent removal, and destruction of infringing embodiments. The Court rejected the application, finding that Motorola could have made the amendment earlier with reasonable diligence, as it had already sought similar injunctive relief in parallel UK proceedings in December 2023.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected as inadmissible an application by 10x Genomics and Harvard College for re-examination of proceedings (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens) under R.245 RoP. The application sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's earlier decision overturning a preliminary injunction in favor of 10x regarding EP 4108782. The court held that the phrase indicating assessment by a technically qualified court did not constitute use of personal judicial opinion as evidence, and that the cost order in the interim proceedings had a proper legal basis under R.242.1 RoP.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
Motorola Mobility LLC filed a patent infringement action against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 3 780 758. Motorola subsequently applied for leave to amend its claims to add requests for injunctive relief, recall, permanent removal, and destruction of infringing embodiments. The Court rejected the application, holding that Motorola failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) of the Rules of Procedure.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 402 415 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the claimant withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, confirmed the parties' cost agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to the claimant.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
The defendant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court sought security for costs of EUR 400,000, arguing that the Israeli claimant's foreign domicile created enforcement risks and that the claimant initiated proceedings to cause material harm. The claimant, part of the PepsiCo group, opposed the request, citing its financial strength and the applicability of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure. The court dismissed the request, holding that the mere location of the claimant's registered office in Israel and unsubstantiated doubts about compliance with a future cost decision did not justify ordering security for costs.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH for the release of a EUR 500,000 security deposit it had lodged with the Unified Patent Court in connection with ex parte interim measures granted against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 B1. After initially depositing the security to enable prompt enforcement, Ortovox subsequently obtained and provided a bank guarantee and sought release of the deposited amount. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the Registrar to release the deposited security, subject to the expiry of the respondents' right to seek review.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 926 698 B1. The claimant sought review of the judge-rapporteur's decision to postpone ruling on the admission of four additional auxiliary requests filed under Rule 30.2 RoP. The court upheld the procedural order, holding that Rule 30.2 RoP leaves the timing of the admission decision to the court's discretion, and that the two-month response period under Rule 32.1 RoP does not automatically apply to later amendment applications under Rule 30.2 RoP.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns EP 3 594 009 B1, where FUJIFILM (Claimant) sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to change its conditional application to amend the patent, originally limited to the German designation, to extend to all designations. The Court rejected the application under Rule 263 RoP but reclassified the amended set of requests as a subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP and allowed it, while rejecting the Defendants' alternative request for an extension of time limits.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Lama France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action brought by Hewlett-Packard Development Company against Lama France based on European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The court ruled on Hewlett-Packard's request under Rule 191 RoP for an order compelling Lama France to disclose information about third parties involved in the production and distribution of the allegedly infringing products. The court found the request admissible and partially granted it in more limited terms than requested, ordering disclosure of certain invoices related to parallel importation from outside the EU, subject to confidentiality measures and without a penalty.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi H.K. Limited regarding European Patent EP 2 568 724 before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The court addressed the issue of service of process when the Hague Service Convention receiving authority in Hong Kong refused service because the plaintiff referred to the defendant's location as 'Hong Kong' rather than the politically preferred 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.' The court ruled that all formal service methods under Rules 270-274 had been exhausted and ordered alternative service under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure, along with publication of the order on the court's homepage.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action against Xiaomi H.K. Limited before the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 2 207 270. After all formal service attempts under Rules 270-274 of the Rules of Procedure and the Hague Service Convention failed—because the Hong Kong receiving authority refused service on political grounds regarding the designation of Hong Kong—the court ordered alternative service under Rule 275.2 RoP, recognizing the steps already taken as valid service and ordering publication of the order on the court's homepage.
Amycel LLC v.[Defendant]
Amycel LLC, owner of European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 directed to a hybrid Agaricus bisporus mushroom strain BR06 (sold as 'Heirloom'), sought provisional measures against a Polish mushroom farmer selling a competing brown mushroom strain called 'Cayene'. The Local Division The Hague found that mushroom strains are not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC, that the patent was valid and infringed, and granted the requested provisional measures including an injunction, delivery-up order, customer disclosure, and penalty payments, subject to Amycel providing EUR 200,000 in security.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited, Dexcom France SAS
This procedural order concerns an application by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court, seeking an order requiring Dexcom entities to disclose the full distribution chain of the allegedly infringing Dexcom G6 and G7 Systems across all Relevant Contracting Member States. The Paris Local Division dismissed the application, finding it admissible in principle but not sufficiently justified or proportionate, given that Abbott had deliberately chosen to sue only one of many distributors. The Court held that Abbott could request more targeted information on the role of each defendant after a decision on the merits.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on July 31, 2024, concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315, holding that all formal service attempts on Xiaomi H.K. Limited had been exhausted after the Hong Kong receiving authority refused to serve the documents on political grounds related to the designation of the defendant's address. The court ordered alternative service under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure, recognizing the steps already taken as valid service, and directed publication of the order on the court's homepage.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
The Local Chamber Vienna of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order regarding an application for intervention by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717 B1. The court admitted Chainzone's intervention on the defendant's side, subject to the condition that Chainzone deposit security for costs of EUR 134,000 by August 20, 2024, due to the risk of unenforceability of a cost decision in China.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities alleging that their FreeStyle Libre 2 glucose monitoring system infringed EP 3 797 685 B1, which relates to communication systems between a sensor electronics unit and a display device in an analyte monitoring system. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, and the Munich Local Division found the patent invalid for lacking an inventive step over the prior art (Berman) when supplemented with common general knowledge. The patent was revoked in its entirety, auxiliary requests were dismissed, and all infringement claims were dismissed with costs borne by the claimant.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 490 258 B1, an HEVC-essential patent. Access Advance LLC, which had intervened on the plaintiff's side to manage the patent pool containing Dolby's HEVC-essential portfolio, applied for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP regarding license agreements it submitted. The court granted the application, holding that an intervener is treated as a party under R. 315.4 RoP and may therefore request confidential treatment of information in its submissions.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request for expedition of its appeal against an order of the Hamburg Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning EP 3167888. The court held that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time limit for the respondent's statement of response, and that Alexion's arguments about seeking patent protection quickly and the appeal involving a purely legal issue were insufficient.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company & Others
Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision of the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court that dismissed its application for provisional measures against multiple Amgen entities concerning EP 3167888. Alongside its appeal, Alexion requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under Rule 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time period for lodging the statement of response.
BEGO Medical GmbH v.CEAD USA B.V., CEAD B.V.
This order concerns a request by the defendant BEGO Medical GmbH to restrict access to its attorney cost estimates (Annexes ES8 and ES9) filed in a nullity action concerning EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court. The court rejected the request to restrict access from the opposing parties (CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V.) under Rule 262A, holding that the claimants needed full access to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of costs under Article 69 UPCA. However, the court granted the request to restrict public access under Rule 262.2, finding that the public's interest in individually negotiated attorney fees generally yields to the party's interest in confidentiality.