European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 6 of 67 · 1,592 total
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect filed by a defendant against a preliminary injunction and interim damage award issued by the Court of First Instance. The Applicant sought to halt the enforcement of the CFI's orders, arguing that certain actions (like website publication) were irreversible and that the financial impact was severe. However, the Court rejected the request, emphasizing that an appeal must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to override the general rule against suspensive effect.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
This UPC decision involved a dual action: an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. Despite the complexity of the technology—which relates to advanced location estimation using positioning-assisting signals—both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim were ultimately dismissed by the Düsseldorf Local Division. The ruling provided important procedural guidance, emphasizing that registration status is prioritized in certain UPC proceedings, while also clarifying the requirements for establishing direct infringement.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a defendant's attempt to introduce late-filed auxiliary amendments (requests 2A to 13A) into an ongoing revocation action. The claimant argued these requests violated Rule 30.2 RoP by being introduced without proper procedure. The Court ultimately rejected the request, emphasizing that while proportionality is considered, the preclusive nature of the rules against 'little steps' amendments must be respected.
ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A. v.GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED et al.
In this preliminary objection case, Establishment Labs S.A. sued GC Aesthetics Group and its affiliates for infringing EP 3 107 487 B1 related to the Perle implant across multiple jurisdictions, including non-UPC states like Ireland and the UK. The Defendants challenged the UPC's jurisdiction over these national designations. The Local Division of Brussels dismissed the objection, affirming that the UPC possesses international jurisdiction over all parts of a European patent when one defendant is properly sued. This ruling clears the path for the merits phase to determine infringement across all claimed territories.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendant to introduce subsequent, limiting auxiliary claims into a revocation action concerning a medical device patent (EP4185356). The Court emphasized its commitment to maintaining the integrity and efficiency of UPC proceedings. Despite arguing that the new amendments were merely responsive to the claimant's objections, the Court rejected them, reinforcing the strict procedural requirements for amending patents during litigation.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC Local Division ruling addresses a procedural challenge concerning cost determination deadlines in complex patent litigation. The court affirmed that parties can seek reinstatement (Wiedereinsetzung) under Rule 320 if they miss the deadline for filing a cost allocation request, provided there are justifiable reasons. This decision provides significant relief to litigants facing strict procedural timelines, emphasizing judicial flexibility and fairness over rigid adherence to deadlines in complex financial matters.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
This UPC CFI order addressed procedural disputes between ZTE and Samsung concerning an infringement action related to EP 3 905 730. The court closed the written procedure but deferred a decision on whether ZTE's late submissions were relevant, requiring analysis after the oral hearing. Crucially, while rejecting Samsung’s request for further written pleadings, the court granted provisional access to confidential license agreement information under strict confidentiality terms (R. 262A RoP), balancing procedural fairness with trade secret protection.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
In this UPC case, Emboline, Inc. sued AorticLab srl for infringing a patent covering an embolic protection device. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the defendant's product did not meet all the requirements of the patented claims. Beyond the merits, the decision provided important procedural guidance on how dependent counterclaims are limited and how costs are allocated when certain intra-procedural conditions are not met.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. v.American Wave Machines, Inc.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Central Division granted a decision by default against American Wave Machines, Inc., after they failed to file a defense in a revocation action concerning EP 2 728 089. The subsequent substantive analysis confirmed the Claimant's arguments, leading to the partial revocation of Claim 1. This case underscores the strict procedural requirements within the UPC and demonstrates how default judgments can be utilized when defendants fail to engage with proceedings.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, Juul Labs successfully sought permission to withdraw its appeal against a revocation judgment. The court granted the withdrawal based on the consent of the opposing party, NJOY. While Juul Labs received a 60% refund of its court fees, it was ultimately ordered to cover the legal costs incurred by NJOY during the appeal process. This case highlights the procedural requirements for withdrawing appeals and the general rule regarding cost allocation in UPC litigation.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal against the revocation of EP 3 498 115. This was possible because the opposing party, NJOY Netherlands B.V., consented to the withdrawal. While the proceedings were closed, the court upheld the general principle that the withdrawing appellant is considered unsuccessful and must cover the costs incurred by the successful party (NJOY) for the appeal stage.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application to withdraw an appeal in a patent revocation case involving vaping technology. The court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal after NJOY consented, closing the appellate proceedings. Despite allowing the withdrawal, the court applied standard cost rules, ruling that Juul Labs, as the appellant who withdrew, was ultimately unsuccessful and must cover NJOY's legal costs for the appeal.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court permitted the withdrawal of an appeal filed by VMR Products LLC against a partial revocation ruling. The key factor enabling the withdrawal was the consent of NJOY Netherlands B.V., which negated any claim that NJOY had a legitimate interest in the ongoing litigation. While the appeal was withdrawn, the Court upheld the general principle that the unsuccessful party (the appellant) must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
In this procedural case, Primetals Technologies sought an order compelling Danieli & C. S.p.A. to produce extensive technical and commercial documentation related to a plant in Vietnam that Primetals alleged infringed EP 2 624 977. The court ultimately rejected the request, finding that Primetals had not provided sufficient or plausible evidence to substantiate its claims of infringement. This decision underscores the high evidentiary threshold required when seeking discovery orders under UPC rules.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a significant revocation proceeding, the UPC Central Division ruled against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, declaring European patent EP 2 671 173 revoked. The patent covered an innovative system for location-aware internet searching while walking. The Court found that the claims lacked inventive step over existing prior art, leading to the complete invalidation of the patent. This decision underscores the rigorous standards applied by the UPC in assessing novelty and inventiveness.
Angelalign Technology Inc. v.Align Technology, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning procedural matters in provisional measures proceedings. Angelalign sought to overturn an earlier order from the Court of First Instance that disregarded its non-infringement arguments. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing strict requirements for challenging lower court decisions. Practitioners should note that simply stating that evidence was excluded is insufficient; applicants must clearly articulate why the exclusion constitutes a manifest error.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision concerns a cost assessment application arising from an appeal regarding service of process in a patent dispute. The court addressed complex procedural issues, specifically concerning the required representation by legal counsel and the limits on reimbursable costs for purely procedural sub-issues. While the underlying infringement case is not decided here, this ruling provides important guidance on how parties must manage their litigation expenses within the UPC framework.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision, while not addressing patent infringement directly, is a significant procedural ruling concerning cost assessment in appellate proceedings. The court clarified the rules governing representation requirements and the limits of reimbursable costs when appeals focus on narrow procedural issues, such as those related to service of process. This case highlights the detailed administrative framework of the UPC regarding litigation expenses.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Das Europäische Patentamt (EPA)
This UPC decision addressed an appeal by PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG against the European Patent Office's refusal to grant unitary effect for EP 3 327 608. The core dispute centered on whether the requirement that a patent must be granted in all participating member states could be interpreted flexibly, especially concerning later-joining members like Malta. The UPC ultimately upheld the EPA's decision, emphasizing the strict legal requirements governing the unitary effect and rejecting arguments based on fundamental rights or administrative discretion.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
In a case involving ETRI against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and several related entities, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf permitted the withdrawal of an infringement action concerning EP 3258692. The parties reached a settlement agreement before the written procedure concluded. Consequently, the court closed the proceedings and ordered the Claimant to receive a partial reimbursement of the Court fees.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This procedural order in the UPC case Align Technology v. Angelalign Technology concerns a request for leave to appeal an earlier decision that restricted the Defendants' ability to submit late-filed non-infringement arguments and further written pleadings during provisional measures proceedings. The Court of First Instance ultimately denied this request, asserting its discretion under the Rules of Procedure (RoP) in managing the case efficiently. This ruling underscores the court's authority to strictly manage procedural timelines, even when those orders significantly impact the substantive defense.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request from Canon Kabushiki Kaisha for simultaneous Japanese interpretation during oral proceedings. The Court ruled that allowing the Claimant to use an interpreter was appropriate to ensure equality of arms, given that some corporate representatives were not proficient in English. However, the Court denied the request for court-organized interpretation and held that the costs would not become part of the proceedings, emphasizing that such arrangements are generally not provided unless necessary or if the language is official.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal against a revocation action concerning EP 3 456 214, a patent covering vaporizer technology. The court confirmed the initial finding that several claims lacked inventive step due to anticipation by prior art (Pan). Furthermore, the judgment provided important procedural guidance on how parties must manage new evidence and arguments when responding to applications to amend under the UPC's strict front-loaded system. This case is significant for practitioners navigating complex revocation proceedings in the unified patent court.
Amazon.com, Inc. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
In a significant ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal denied Amazon's application for suspensive effect against an earlier Local Division Mannheim order. The dispute centered on whether the existing order, which restricted Amazon's actions regarding patent infringement proceedings in the UK, posed an imminent and irreversible threat to Amazon's interests. The court determined that while Amazon argued potential penalty risks, it failed to meet the high threshold required to justify suspending the original decision.