European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 57 of 67 · 1,592 total
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company; Amgen N.V.; Amgen GmbH; Amgen AB; Amgen S.A.S.; Amgen s.r.l.; Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda.; Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding its application for provisional measures against Amgen entities. The appeal sought an expedited hearing process under UPC Rules of Procedure. However, the Court of Appeal ultimately rejected the request for expedition, finding that Alexion's arguments were insufficient to outweigh the respondents' interests in maintaining standard procedural timelines. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain accelerated proceedings within the Unified Patent Court framework.
Dolby International AB v.HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Finland Oy, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP Austria GmbH, HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc Danmark ApS, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Italy S.r.l., HP France SAS, HP International SARL, HP PPS Sverige AB, HP Belgium SPRL, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV
In a case concerning the infringement of an HEVC essential patent, Dolby International AB sought protection for its confidential information via an assisting party (Access Advance LLC). The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order granting this request. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms within the UPC that allow parties and assisting parties to protect trade secrets during litigation, ensuring sensitive business data remains restricted to authorized personnel.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of serving legal documents on defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong during infringement proceedings. NEC Corporation sought alternative service methods, such as email or public notice, but the Court rejected these requests. The ruling reinforces that while the UPC has its own procedural rules, they must operate within the framework of international conventions (like the Hague Convention) and respect the national laws of the contracting states. This decision serves as a critical reminder to practitioners about the strict requirements for cross-border service in the UPC.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This UPC decision addresses procedural scheduling in an infringement case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril. The court faced significant logistical challenges due to the unavailability of key defense counsel, who were tied up with other major litigation matters. After balancing efficiency goals against the right to fair representation, the Court set the interim conference for 2024 and scheduled the main oral hearing for 2025.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request by Powell Gilbert LLP for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in an ongoing UPC case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court ruled that once a decision has been rendered, the general interest of the public in scrutinizing court proceedings outweighs the parties' concern over maintaining procedural integrity, even if an appeal is pending. This reinforces the principle that transparency prevails after a judgment, setting a clear precedent for post-decision document access requests.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Central Division rejected a revocation action against EP 3 414 708. The case centered on complex arguments regarding the admissibility of patent amendments to claims that were not directly challenged in the initial revocation suit. By maintaining the patent in its amended form, the court provided clarity on how patentees can utilize procedural mechanisms like auxiliary requests during litigation, even when only a subset of claims is attacked.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.BITZER Electronics A/S; Carrier Corporation
In a decision concerning public access to court files, the UPC granted an application by Mathys & Squire LLP. The applicant sought access to all written pleadings and evidence in a patent validity case (EP 3 414 708). The Court determined that the general interest of the public in transparency superseded any potential confidentiality concerns under Article 45 UPCA, particularly as the proceedings were concluding. This ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to open justice while balancing party interests.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Amgen Inc.'s infringement suit against Sanofi and Regeneron regarding EP3666797 (covering Praluent/Alirocumab) was stayed by the UPC Local Division Munich. This stay followed a prior Central Division decision that had revoked the patent in its entirety, which is now subject to appeal. The parties agreed to halt the infringement proceedings until the validity challenge reaches a final resolution.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of serving legal documents on defendants domiciled in non-EU jurisdictions, specifically China and Hong Kong. NEC Corporation sought to use alternative service methods (email or public notice) for its TCL counterparts, but the Court rejected this request. The ruling reinforces that procedural formalities regarding international service cannot be bypassed simply due to the claimant's desire for a swift remedy, emphasizing adherence to both UPC rules and relevant national laws.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a request for public access to court documents following the conclusion of provisional measures proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of the applicant, Powell Gilbert LLP, granting access to pleadings and evidence. The ruling established that after a final decision is rendered, the general interest of the public in scrutinizing judicial decisions outweighs the parties' concerns regarding procedural integrity, even if an appeal is pending.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.VusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA)
This UPC Appeals Board decision clarifies the procedural rules governing cost determination in complex litigation. The court ruled that even when a party seeks to recover costs related to the appeals process itself, the application must ultimately be filed with and decided by the Court of First Instance. This ruling reinforces the structured nature of the UPC's procedure, ensuring that all final cost determinations follow the established framework (R. 150 ff. VerfO). Practitioners should note this when planning their costs recovery strategy in multi-stage UPC proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed requests concerning auxiliary claims and deadlines in a provisional measures appeal involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The court ultimately rejected Abbott's attempts to disregard the Respondents' request for an extension of time. This decision highlights the court's careful balancing act between parties' interests, particularly when new procedural requests are introduced late in proceedings.
Simulity Labs Limited v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the confidentiality of evidence (Exhibit 4) in an ongoing infringement action involving ARM and ICPillar. The Court rejected ICPillar's request to keep the exhibit confidential, prioritizing transparency for the main proceedings. Crucially, the court balanced this by granting both parties opportunities to amend their respective statements based on the newly available information, thereby addressing concerns about equality of arms.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Vivisol B BV
This UPC appeal addressed a procedural request by Vivisol B BV seeking to suspend proceedings and extend deadlines related to an infringement action brought by OrthoApnea S.L. The Court of Appeal ultimately rejected the suspension request, ruling that parties must adhere to standard litigation procedures regardless of potential future appellate outcomes. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural steps in UPC cases must proceed without undue delay, even when substantive issues are under appeal.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In this procedural order concerning an application for provisional measures, the UPC granted Valeo Electrification leave to change its claim regarding EP 3 320 602 B1. The Applicant sought to unconditionally limit a previously 'alternatively' claimed feature in its injunction request. The Court ruled that R. 263 RoP applies fully to PI proceedings and found that this specific limitation was favorable to the Defendants as it narrowed the scope of the potential preliminary injunctions, thus allowing the amendment.
Simulity Labs Limited v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application concerning the confidentiality of evidence (Exhibit 4) in an ongoing infringement action involving ARM and ICPillar. The court rejected ICPillar's request to keep the information confidential, deeming the justification insufficient. Consequently, the unredacted version of the exhibit was made available to the Respondents, allowing them time to amend their pleadings.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving drug infusion systems. The Court ruled that despite one defendant being based in Germany, the interests and positions of the defendants collectively justified switching the language to English, which was the patent's granting language. This ruling reinforces the principle that when balancing linguistic interests, the position of the defendants holds decisive weight.
CANÈ S.p.A. v.FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
In a case concerning infringement of EP3181168, CANÈ S.p.A. and FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE reached an amicable settlement before the UPC Paris Local Division. The court formally homologated this transaction, bringing an end to the litigation. A key aspect of the decision was the ruling on procedural costs, where the claimant successfully claimed a 60% reimbursement based on the timing of the agreement.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In a procedural ruling, NanoString Technologies Europe Limited successfully opposed President and Fellows of Harvard College's attempt to introduce late-stage written submissions and expert reports in a revocation action concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court upheld the principle of 'front-loaded character' inherent in UPC proceedings. This decision reinforces the requirement for parties to present their full case early, preventing procedural delays and ensuring efficient judicial process.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC rejected a request by Xiaomi entities to extend their deadline for filing a statement of defense in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC regarding a patented chip technology. The court emphasized that the existing time limits are robust enough to handle complex international technical coordination and did not accept arguments related to supplier confidentiality or lack of internal technical insight as sufficient grounds for an exception. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining strict procedural timelines while offering specific mechanisms, such as R. 262A RoP, for handling confidential information.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addresses how defendants can submit large video recordings as evidence in an ongoing infringement action. The court clarified that although USB sticks are permitted for exceeding CMS size limits, a specific two-step procedure involving a new R. 9 application and a 'physical exhibit description' document must be followed to ensure proper registration with the Court's system. This ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural rules when introducing physical evidence in UPC proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This UPC decision addressed procedural motions within an infringement case involving EP3404726. The claimant, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., sought to proceed against Laser Components SAS, while Photon Wave Co.,Ltd. intervened and requested a stay of the proceedings pending a parallel revocation action in the Central Division. The Court rejected the request for a stay, emphasizing procedural efficiency and noting that the infringement case was further along than the revocation case. However, the Court granted the request to allocate a technical judge to the panel.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This UPC decision addresses procedural applications in two revocation actions concerning patents EP3056563 and EP3056564. Both the Claimant, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and the Defendants confirmed that they had reached a settlement. The Court accepted their request to dispose of the cases under Rule 360 RoP, confirming that settlement allows for case disposal without mandatory judicial confirmation. The ruling reinforces the principle of party disposition in UPC proceedings, allowing parties flexibility in concluding actions outside formal judgment. Furthermore, the court granted the Claimant a reimbursement of court fees, underscoring the procedural encouragement for early settlements.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural issues surrounding evidence preservation and inspection under Article 60 UPCA. The court established that the disclosure of preserved evidence is not automatic; it requires balancing the applicant's need for information against the respondent's right to protect confidential trade secrets. Crucially, the ruling clarified the timing mechanism for revocation of measures, linking the deadline to when the evidence is actually disclosed or access is denied. This decision provides vital guidance on managing confidentiality in preliminary UPC proceedings.