European UPC IP Litigation
1,878 annotated decisions
Page 59 of 79 · 1,878 total
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order was issued by the Local Division in Milan in a patent infringement action brought by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent No. EP2145848. The defendant Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation. The judge-rapporteur outlined the agenda for the upcoming interim conference, addressing settlement prospects, translation errors in the Italian patent validation, the scope of Himson's revocation counterclaim, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, the infringement claim and related evidence, ancillary measures, litigation costs, and the organization of the Oral Hearing.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on November 22, 2024, rejecting the defendants' application for a stay of proceedings and cancellation of the scheduled pronouncement date, as well as their alternative application for postponement of the pronouncement to at least December 6, 2024. The court found that the requirements for a stay under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure were not met, particularly because there was no joint application from both parties, as the plaintiff had expressly opposed the stay. The case concerns European Patent EP 2 568 724.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. v.Plant-e Knowledge B.V.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants in microbial fuel cells, to be valid and infringed by equivalence by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court applied a four-question test for assessing infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringement, recall infringing products, provide information, publish a corrective notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for non-compliance.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation filed an application for provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. for alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327, relating to its Omnipod 5 insulin patch pump technology. Insulet asserted that Menarini's distribution of the EOPatch (marketed as GlucoMen Day Pump) infringed its patent rights. The Milan Local Division addressed key procedural questions regarding the admissibility of auxiliary requests to amend the patent in provisional measures proceedings, holding that such amendments are inadmissible under Rule 30.2 RoP and must be raised in main proceedings.
Plant-e B.V., Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) ruled that European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants, is valid and infringed by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court found infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringing activities, provide information, publish a recall notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for any further infringement.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
In the proceedings for provisional measures, the Applicant is required to provide cumulatively reasonable evidence to satisfy the Court with sufficient degree of certainty that: (i) the Applicant is entitled to initiate proceedings under Art. 47 UPCA; (ii) the patent is valid; (iii) its rights are being infringed or that such infringement is imminent (Rule 211.2 RoP). The auxiliary request to amend the patent pursuant to Rule 30.2 RoP is not admissible in the proceedings for provisional mea
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought an infringement action against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Court of First Instance rendered its decision on November 22, 2024, following an oral hearing on October 7 and 8, 2024. A redacted version of the decision was subsequently ordered on February 6, 2025, after the parties were given the opportunity to comment on confidential information.
Collomix GmbH v.Respondent
Collomix GmbH filed a patent infringement action against three defendants concerning water dosing devices marketed under the 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät' brand. After filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff requested permission to submit a physical example of the accused embodiment, including its original packaging, operating instructions, and a matching screwdriver. Defendants 1 and 2 objected, arguing under Rule 171.1 of the Rules of Procedure that the evidence should have been submitted with the initial complaint. The Local Chamber Munich ordered the submission, holding that Rule 172.2 RoP permits the court to order production of evidence at any stage of the proceedings.
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, INTERLUX, UAB, SORMEDICA, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance regarding a request for a stay of infringement proceedings pending opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office. The appellants, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, and SMIS International OÜ, sought a stay under Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP. The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility of new legal arguments on appeal and clarified the framework for granting stays pending EPO opposition decisions, holding that the Court has discretionary power to stay proceedings even where the expected EPO decision is not final and may be appealed.
OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v.***
1 Beschikking van het Hof van Beroep van het Eengemaakt Octrooigerecht uitgesproken op 21 november 2024 INHOUDSINDICATIE 1. Niet elk nieuw argument is wijziging van de zaak waarvoor een partij op grond van R. 263 Pr een verzoek om verlof moet indienen. Van wijziging van de zaak is spr
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had issued a preliminary injunction against Magna but exempted its supply obligations for five BMW models. Magna sought rectification, arguing the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was inadvertently omitted, which the Court of First Instance denied. The Standing Judge of the Court of Appeal granted Magna's renewed application for suspensive effect, suspending the impugned order's effect regarding the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model until the competent panel of the Court of Appeal decides on the matter.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Laboratories GmbH, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Oy, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott (S.A./N.V.), Abbott B.V., Abbott France (S.A.S.), Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott Diabetes
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488, in which DexCom, Inc. brought a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, primarily for reasons of procedural efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488. The Claimant DexCom, Inc. requested an extension of time limits for filing the Rejoinder to the Counterclaim for revocation and the Reply to the conditional Application to amend. Although the Defendants (multiple Abbott entities) did not consent, the court granted the extension based on fairness and equity, extending the deadlines until 11 December 2024.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed an application by the Defendants (Magna entities) for rectification of an earlier order dated 31 October 2024, which had granted provisional measures against them in favor of the Applicant (Valeo Electrification) concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Defendants sought three corrections: adding the BMW model '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the exemption list, clarifying that a French vindication action also covered the German and Slovak parts of the patent, and correcting a statement about the parties' agreement to update a list. The Court found no obvious slips warranting rectification under R. 353 RoP and dismissed the application.
MAARS FRANCE, MAARS PROJECTEN B.V., MAARS HOLDING B.V., MAARS PARTITIONING SYSTEMS B.V. v.Respondent
1 The Hague - local division UPC_CFI_455/2024 App_52709/2024 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17 December 2024 regarding R. 158 APPLICANT/S 1) MAARS HOLDING B.V. - Newtonweg 1 - 3846 BJ - Harderwijk, Gelderland - NL Represented by Martin
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Intel Corporation, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. v.Daedalus Prime LLC
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_169/2024 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/11/2024 APPLICANT 1) Daedalus Prime LLC (Claimant) - 75 South Riverside, unit B/C, Croton- on-Hudson - 10520 - New York - US Represented by Dr. Marc Gru
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Respondent
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_555/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 18/11/2024 APPLICANT Malikie Innovations Ltd. (Claimant) - The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street Lower Dun Laoghaire - A96 VR66 - Dublin - IE Represe
UPC Decision UPC-001163 v.Respondent
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed an application for interim measures against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd concerning European Patent EP 3 197 316, but withdrew the application the following day. After the court confirmed the effectiveness of the withdrawal, Philips sought a 60% refund of the court fees paid. The Local Division Munich held that Rule 370(9)(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure applies analogously to the withdrawal of an application for interim measures before completion of the written procedure, and ordered a refund of €6,600.00.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh
This decision was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court's Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP 3 646 825. The headnotes address key procedural and substantive issues including the UPC's jurisdiction over pre-1 June 2023 infringing acts, the claimant's choice of competent German local division, bifurcation and referral of counterclaims for revocation under Article 32(3b) UPCA, and the court's discretion regarding stays of infringement proceedings. The decision also addresses injunctive relief under Article 34 UPCA, the consideration of third-party and public interests under Article 64(4) UPCA, and mechanisms such as mandatory licenses and single-use licenses to address public needs.
Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 646 825 before the Local Division Munich. The Defendants (Meril) filed late applications requesting the Court to approach the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the written procedure. The Court rejected the requests as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and the oral hearing, and noted that no formal investigation had been opened by the European Commission.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns the handling of confidential information in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent No. 3 215 288. The defendant Vibrantz GmbH sought to classify certain redacted text passages and unredacted exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited number of persons. The claimants Heraeus partially contested the need for protection, arguing that some information had already been disclosed in national proceedings and requesting access for five named individuals. The court addressed the scope of confidentiality protection and the number of persons permitted to access the sensitive recipe/formulation information.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
1 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 November 2024 concerning an application for suspensive effect (R.223.4 RoP) APPLICANTS AND DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI 1. Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Untergruppenbach, Germany 2. Magna PT s.r.o.
*** v.AMYCEL, LLC
This case concerned an appeal regarding the Appellant's entitlement to reduced court fees in proceedings involving European Patent EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had initially claimed micro-enterprise status to pay a reduced fee of €6,600, but later abandoned that claim and asserted small enterprise status without providing supporting evidence. The Court of Appeal found the Appellant failed to demonstrate qualification as a small enterprise and ordered payment of the remaining fee plus a penalty, totaling €9,900. Following the Appellant's non-payment and request for waiver or legal aid, the matter proceeded toward a default decision against the Appellant.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 13/11/2024 ABSTRACT : 1. Conformément à l'article 69 de la Convention sur les brevets européens (CBE) et du Protocole sur son interprétation, la présente Cour