European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 58 of 84 · 2,007 total
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three Asian TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal held that service by email to a person not authorized to accept service, and public service by written notice displayed at the court's premises, were not permissible at this stage of the proceedings. The appeal was rejected, with the Court confirming that Hague Convention service attempts should normally be made before alternative methods of service can be employed.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.
Amgen Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Sanofi and Regeneron entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 3 666 797 and their drug Praluent (Alirocumab). After the Central Division revoked the patent in its entirety on 16 July 2024, both parties agreed to stay the infringement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation decision.
Mathys & Squire LLP (Application under Rule 262(1)(b) RoP in proceedings UPC_CFI_263/2023) v.Ex Parte
An intellectual property firm, Mathys & Squire LLP, applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_263/2023) concerning European patent EP 3 414 708, involving BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation as parties. The respondents did not object to the application. The judge-rapporteur granted the application, finding that the proceedings had concluded and that no substantial interests under Article 45 UPCA outweighed the applicant's interest in accessing the documents.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
BITZER Electronics A/S brought a revocation action against Carrier Corporation seeking to invalidate claim 1 of European patent EP 3 414 708 B1, which relates to an apparatus for cold chain monitoring of perishable goods. The claimant alleged added subject matter, insufficient disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court rejected the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended under auxiliary request II, while splitting costs 60% to the claimant and 40% to the defendant.
Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Public Access to the Register) v.Ex Parte
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1 RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded proceedings (UPC_CFI_131/2024) concerning EP3831283, a patent owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The main proceeding parties (Abbott, Sibio Technology Limited, and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) opposed the application, arguing that an appeal was pending and that Powell Gilbert lacked a sufficiently specific interest. The Local Division The Hague granted the application, applying the criteria from the Court of Appeal's decision in Ocado v AutoStore, and also granted leave to appeal.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural scheduling order from the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3669828. The court addressed the defendants' request to postpone the oral hearing due to the unavailability of their representative, Mr. Würtenberger, who was expecting a child and planning parental leave. Balancing the claimant's right to efficient proceedings within one year against the defendants' right to representation of their choice, the court set the oral hearing for a date in 2025 and the interim conference for a date in 2024.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that service by email to a person not authorised to accept service, or by public notice at the Local Division's premises, was not permissible at this stage, and that Hague Convention service methods should normally be attempted first before alternative methods could be employed.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd & Others v.VusionGroup SA
This case concerns a procedural question before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding where a cost determination application must be filed when it follows an order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that cost determination applications must be filed at the Court of First Instance, even when they relate exclusively or partially to costs of appeal proceedings, and referred Hanshow's application to the Rapporteur of the Court of First Instance.
Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Public Access to the Register) v.Ex Parte
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from provisional measures proceedings (UPC_CFI_130/2024) concerning patent EP2713879, involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. as applicant and Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. as defendants. Both Abbott and Sibio c.s. opposed the request, arguing that the proceedings were still ongoing due to a pending appeal and that Powell Gilbert lacked a sufficiently specific legitimate interest. The Local Division The Hague applied the criteria from Ocado v AutoStore and granted access, holding that the general public interest in understanding and scrutinizing court decisions outweighs the integrity of proceedings once first instance proceedings have ended, even where an appeal is pending.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against the denial of its preliminary injunction application by the UPC Local Division The Hague regarding patent EP 3 831 283. Abbott had submitted four auxiliary requests in its appeal, which the Respondents sought to have disregarded. The Court of Appeal decided to defer ruling on the allowability of the auxiliary requests to the oral hearing and granted the Respondents an extension of deadline for their Statement of response, ultimately rejecting Abbott's requests in its R.9 RoP application.
CANÈ S.p.A. v.France Développement Électronique
CANÈ S.p.A., an Italian company and proprietor of European patent EP3181168, brought a patent infringement action against France Développement Électronique (FDE) before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement through the delivery and offering of 'So-Easy' devices in France, Germany, and Italy. FDE did not contest the validity of the patent or the infringement but undertook to cease infringing activities. The parties reached a settlement agreement on June 20, 2024, which the court homologated, ordering reimbursement of €9,100 in procedural fees to CANÈ and withdrawal of certain exhibits from the proceedings.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Others v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (Language of Proceedings Order)
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH filed an infringement action against Tandem Diabetes Care entities and VitalAire GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg based on European Patent EP 2196231. The defendants requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that when balancing of interests is equal between international parties, the position of the defendant is the decisive factor.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco (UK) Limited
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns an application by ICPillar LLC under R.262A RoP for confidentiality regarding Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal in proceedings concerning patent EP 3000239. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request for confidentiality, finding the reasons insufficient to justify protection of the information. The Court then addressed procedural consequences, granting ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response while rejecting ICPillar's argument that this created an equality of arms issue.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG and Others
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, in which the applicant Valeo Electrification sought leave to amend its application for provisional measures by deleting the word 'alternatively' from its claim, thereby converting an alternative claim into a main claim. The court granted leave, holding that Rule 263 RoP applies to provisional measure proceedings and that the amendment constituted an unconditional limitation under R. 263.3 RoP that did not unduly prejudice the defendants.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Respondent]
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a request for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP. The appellants (OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV) sought to suspend the deadline for filing their rejoinder pending the appeal of a decision by the Brussels local division that refused to extend the deadline beyond August 1, 2024. The standing judge held that the request for suspensive effect was admissible but unfounded, and referred the remaining requests to the competent chamber of the Court of Appeal.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco (UK) Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an application under R.262A RoP for confidentiality in appeal proceedings related to a security for costs order. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request to keep certain parts of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal confidential, and ordered that the unrestricted version be made available to ARM without any duty of confidentiality. The Court also gave ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response but rejected ICPillar's request to amend its own Statement of appeal, finding no equality of arms issue.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning EP 2 794 928 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant (Harvard) sought to introduce further written submissions and two expert reports shortly before the oral hearing, prompted by the German Federal Patent Court's revocation of the German part of the patent. The Judge-rapporteur dismissed the request, holding that it violated the front-loaded character of UPC proceedings and would unfairly prejudice the Claimant.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 028 981. The defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) filed a Rule 9 RoP application requesting permission to submit video recordings (Exhibits D 7b and D 7c) on USB sticks because their file size exceeded the CMS upload limit. The court granted the request and provided detailed procedural instructions for submitting physical exhibits.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH regarding EP2792100. The Xiaomi defendants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation, citing the need to obtain technical information from MediaTek under restrictive confidentiality obligations. The court rejected the request, finding that the defendants had not demonstrated exceptional reasons justifying an extension beyond the already adequate time limits provided under the Rules of Procedure.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European patent EP3404726. The intervening party Photon Wave sought suspension of the infringement proceedings pending a revocation action it had filed before the Central Division of Paris, and also requested allocation of a technically qualified judge. The Court rejected the suspension request, finding that the infringement proceedings were more advanced and that the Central Division was unlikely to retain jurisdiction, but granted the request for a technical judge.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of certain documents filed by Oerlikon in an infringement action regarding EP2145848. The court addressed the treatment of two documents: Document 37 (a Settlement Agreement with a Chinese operator) was withdrawn from evidence entirely, while Document 38 (commercial data) was granted confidential status with restricted access to a defined 'club' of individuals.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, and Osaka University
Two revocation actions brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine against proprietors of European Patents EP 3 056 563 and EP 3 056 564 were disposed of by the Central Division (Section Munich) after the parties reached a settlement. The Court held that parties may conclude their action by way of settlement without seeking a confirmatory Court decision under Rule 365 RoP, and disposed of the actions under Rule 360 RoP as they had become devoid of purpose. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees in each action, ruling that Rule 370.9(c) RoP is not limited to Court-confirmed settlements.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information filed by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG in an infringement action against Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding patent EP2145848. Oerlikon sought confidentiality protection for two documents (a Settlement Agreement with a Chinese third party and commercial data), requesting access be restricted to Himson's lawyers only. The Court excluded Document 37 from the evidentiary record entirely after Oerlikon withdrew it, and granted restricted 'club' access to Document 38 for Himson's lawyer, one technical consultant, and one natural person representing Himson.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Milan) that had revoked measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises granted in favor of Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against AWM Srl and SCHNELL S.p.A. The Court of Appeal held that applications for preservation of evidence under Article 60 UPCA imply disclosure of the evidence to the applicant, but that the other party must be heard on confidentiality before disclosure. The case was referred back to the Court of First Instance to properly consider Progress's requests for disclosure and to address confidentiality issues.