European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 59 of 84 · 2,007 total
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd and Others
This case concerns a dispute before the Local Chamber Mannheim regarding confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 479 680. The defendants (AYLO entities) sought review of the Rapporteur's confidentiality order, arguing that three natural persons named by the plaintiffs should be excluded from accessing confidential information about the operation of the accused embodiments. The panel rejected the application, confirming the Rapporteur's order and finding that the plaintiffs have a legitimate interest in involving persons familiar with the relevant IP and technology.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed whether Access Advance LLC, which intervened on the claimant's side as the administrator of the patent pool into which Dolby's HEVC-essential patents were contributed, should have access to confidential information filed by the defendants. The court held that an intervener is treated as a party and is entitled to have at least one natural person included in the circle of authorized recipients of confidential information.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl and counterclaims for revocation filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against European patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, relating to prosthetic heart valves with sealing mechanisms. The patent proprietor submitted multiple requests to amend the patent during the proceedings, ultimately proposing one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The Court rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended by auxiliary request II, and ordered costs to be borne 60% by the claimant and counterclaimants jointly and 40% by the defendant.
Nelissen v.OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV
This is a procedural decision from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning patent EP 2 331 036. The defendants (OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV) sought review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order that had permitted the claimant (Mr. Nelissen) to supplement his Reply with new facts, an equivalence-based infringement argument, and a modified petitum. The panel conducted a marginal review and confirmed the Judge-Rapporteur's decision in all respects, while granting the defendants leave to appeal.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerned a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl and counterclaims for revocation filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against European Patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, which relates to prosthetic heart valves with sealing mechanisms. The claimants and counterclaimants challenged the patent's validity on grounds including added subject matter, lack of enabling disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended by auxiliary request II submitted by the defendant during the proceedings, and ordered costs to be borne 60% by the claimants/counterclaimants and 40% by the defendant.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Meril Italy Srl filed a revocation action against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to prosthetic heart valves with sealing mechanisms. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation in related infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division, which were transferred to the Central Division Paris. The Court rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended by auxiliary request II submitted by Edwards, with costs split 60% against the claimants/counterclaimants and 40% against the defendant.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.
This case concerns a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 666 797 B1, owned by Amgen, relating to monoclonal antibodies binding to PCSK9 for treating hypercholesterolemia. The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (Munich Section) revoked the patent entirely for lack of inventive step under Article 138(1)(a) EPC in conjunction with Article 56 EPC, finding that neither the main request nor any auxiliary requests submitted by Amgen were valid. Amgen was ordered to bear Regeneron's legal costs in the amount of 1.375 million euro.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe v.Amgen, Inc.
The Central Division (Munich Section) of the Unified Patent Court revoked European Patent EP 3 666 797 B1 entirely for lack of inventive step. The patent, owned by Amgen, related to antigen binding proteins (antibodies) to PCSK9 for treating hypercholesterolemia. The court found that neither the main request nor any of the auxiliary requests submitted by Amgen involved an inventive step over the prior art, and ordered Amgen to bear the Claimants' legal costs.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 926 698 B1. The Korean plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., requested court-ordered simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing (scheduled for September 5, 2024) from German into English, arguing that its Korean representatives did not speak German. The court denied the request, holding that since Germany had designated English as an additional procedural language at the Düsseldorf Local Chamber, the plaintiff could have chosen English as the procedural language and avoided the need for interpretation altogether. The plaintiff was instead permitted to hire its own interpreter at its own expense.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated July 11, 2024, concerning Apple's request to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the deadline for Ona Patents SL to file its response to the appeal. The court rejected Apple's acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in expediting the proceedings did not outweigh Ona's interests in a proper proceeding. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action by Ona against Apple based on EP 2 263 098, and Apple's prior request to change the procedural language from German to English, which had been rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others (UPC_CFI_219/2023)
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation regarding information contained in its reply and annexes related to European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants, comprising multiple Xiaomi entities, Odiporo GmbH, and Shamrock Mobile GmbH, contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for their legal representatives across parallel proceedings. The court issued a final order classifying certain license agreement and negotiation information as confidential while restricting access to specified legal representatives and approved personnel, rejecting the more expansive requests of both parties.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered the referral of a counterclaim for revocation and the corresponding patent amendment request to the Central Chamber Paris. The court reasoned that since nearly all attacks against the patent in suit (EP 4 074 373) were already being pursued in a prior central revocation action filed by the first defendant, efficiency considerations favored having the Central Chamber decide on the counterclaim as well. The defendants' objections regarding the risk of divergent decisions, change of language, and the advanced stage of the central proceedings were rejected.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) to extend the deadline for filing their Duplik (reply) in a patent infringement case involving EP 3 024 163. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's Replik (rejoinder) was filed with numerous redactions serving as placeholders for later submissions, preventing them from preparing a complete response. The court held that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' is impermissible, but as an exception, ruled that the Duplik deadline had not yet begun to run.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others (UPC_CFI_219/2023)
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation regarding information contained in its unredacted reply and annexes, particularly relating to patent license agreements and negotiations. The defendants, multiple Xiaomi entities and other companies, contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for their attorneys in parallel proceedings. The court issued a final order classifying certain information as confidential, limiting access to specified persons, and rejecting further requests beyond the preliminary order.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement case involving EP 2 568 724. The court partially granted Panasonic's confidentiality requests regarding license negotiations and third-party patent license agreements, while rejecting broader requests. The court defined the scope of the confidentiality club, allowing access to procedural representatives in Mannheim and Munich proceedings and three named reliable persons.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 568 724, addressing Panasonic's request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure regarding information contained in its unredacted reply and annexes, as well as licensing negotiations between the parties. The defendants (OPPO) contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for additional personnel and external counsel. The court granted partial confidentiality protection, defining a limited confidentiality club and restricting use of the protected information to UPC proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
Order of the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC_CFI_210/2023 concerning patent EP2568724 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court granted the defendant's requests for extension of time (App_39329/2024 and App_39331/2024), extending deadlines for filing the duplik on the rejoinder regarding FRAND and the rejoinder on the reply to the FRAND counterclaim from July 17, 2024 to August 14, 2024.
Anonymous Claimant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP 2 331 036. The defendants filed a procedural application objecting to the claimant's inclusion of new facts, an equivalence-based infringement argument, and an adjusted petitum in the Reply to the Statement of Defence. The Judge-Rapporteur rejected the defendants' main request, holding that the amendments were consistent with the procedural-evolutionary course of litigation and the purpose of Rule 13 RoP, but granted a two-week extension for the defendants to file their Rejoinder.
ARM Limited and Others v.ICPillar LLC
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by ARM under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. ARM sought a declaration that ICPillar's Statement of grounds of appeal had not been served, or alternatively, an extension of the deadline for lodging its Statement of response. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request but granted the alternative request, ordering that the time period for ARM's Statement of response would end 15 days after the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) was made available to ARM's representative.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH regarding EP 3 024 163. The court issued a consolidated confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, protecting information related to prior and ongoing license negotiations and internal business considerations. The court modified the preliminary order, limiting access to confidential information to specified persons and their legal representatives, and set a coercive penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per culpable violation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding patent EP 2 697 391. After 10x Genomics appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) that partly dismissed its application for provisional measures against Curio Bioscience, 10x subsequently requested to withdraw the appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal with Curio's consent and ordered that 10x, as the unsuccessful party, bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for its reply, covering information about prior and ongoing licensing negotiations and internal business considerations. The Xiaomi defendants did not contest the need for protection but requested modifications to the provisional order, which the court largely granted in a consolidated final order.