European UPC IP Litigation
1,878 annotated decisions
Page 60 of 79 · 1,878 total
Qualcomm Inc. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S
Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_54/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 12 November 2024 Claimant 1) Headwater Research LLC (Main proceeding party - Claimant) - 110 North College Ave., Suite 1116 - 75702 - Tyler, Texas - US
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Article 83(4) UPCA regarding the withdrawal of an opt-out from the UPC's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to proceedings commenced prior to it. Consequently, the Court set aside the Court of First Instance's orders dismissing AIM's infringement action and provisional measures request, and referred the actions back to the Court of First Instance for further adjudication.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1, owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence based on the alleged misidentification of the Defendant, which was rejected and confirmed on appeal. The case proceeded with a Statement of Defense to Revocation filed in December 2023, and an oral hearing was held on 10 September 2024. The decision addresses key procedural and substantive issues including the Court's power to limit a patent under Article 65(3) UPCA, the dispositive principle governing party requests, and claim interpretation as a question of law.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD KINGTYRE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A., holder of European Patent EP 2519412 relating to a tire for motor vehicles and a pair of tires for motor vehicles, filed an application for provisional and precautionary measures against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. (China) and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH (Germany) ahead of the EICMA international motorcycle exhibition (November 5-10, 2024), alleging that the defendants would exhibit infringing products. The Court declined to grant an ex parte injunction but invited Pirelli to limit its request to seizure, delivery of infringing goods, and procedural costs. Pirelli accordingly narrowed its application, and the Single Judge proceeded to decide the matter under Rule 212(2) given the extreme urgency.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs, Inc.
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 504 991 B1, brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International, Inc. The decision addresses the legal framework for evaluating inventive step under Article 56 EPC, emphasizing the objective approach, the role of the person skilled in the art, and the relevance of the state of the art. The Court also addressed procedural principles under the front-loaded system of UPC proceedings, including the obligation of parties to set out their full case early and the possibility of substantiating arguments in reply submissions.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD.China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub-council
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed a request for provisional measures against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co. Ltd. (Helios) and CCPIT in connection with European Patent EP 3519207, titled 'motorcycles tyre,' ahead of the EICMA 2024 trade fair in Milan. Pirelli alleged that Helios's HA-51R and HA-51F tires reproduced all features of claim 1 of EP207 and sought ex parte injunction, seizure, and provisional costs. The Court declined to grant the ex parte injunction and invited Pirelli to either limit its request to seizure, delivery of goods, and costs, or withdraw entirely; Pirelli opted to limit its request accordingly.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. And other
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application for provisional measures without hearing the other party before the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court, seeking a preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited based on European Patent No. EP 4 240 194, which relates to a fastening device for communication units. The Court granted the provisional measures, including an injunction, an order for delivery up of infringing products at EICMA 2024, and penalty payments, subject to the Applicant providing security of €100,000.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.Respondent
Mathys & Squire LLP, an intellectual property law firm, applied under Rule 262.3 of the Rules of Procedure for access to unredacted versions of written pleadings in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_75/2023) concerning EP3056563, where certain information had been kept confidential at the request of the Claimant, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The Applicant argued that the redacted information was not genuinely confidential as it was either already publicly available or merely a summary of submissions already provided. The Court of First Instance (Central Division, Munich) found the application admissible and well-founded, holding that the Claimant had failed to contest the Applicant's assertions in a substantiated manner, and granted access to the unredacted documents.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This case concerned an action for patent infringement brought by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers regarding European Patent EP2145848. The defendant had acknowledged the validity of the patent and the infringement without raising any defense. The court addressed several procedural and substantive issues, including the suspension of proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP, the discretionary nature of permanent injunctions under Article 63(1) UPCA, penalty payments under Article 63(2) UPCA, publication of decisions under Article 80 UPCA, moral damages under Article 68(3a) UPCA, and provisional damages under Rule 119 RoP.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This procedural order concerns an application by Scandit AG under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file a reply to the respondent's appeal response in a patent infringement appeal. The underlying dispute involves EP 3 866 051, where the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) had issued an interim injunction on August 27, 2024 against Scandit for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10. Scandit sought leave to file a reply to address what it characterized as new arguments raised by Hand Held Products regarding features 1.7 to 1.9 of claim 1 and to introduce additional prior art.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg on 1 November 2024 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP4108782 held by Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen filed requests under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order compelling the plaintiffs to produce specific documents and deposition transcripts from the discovery process of a parallel US proceeding. The requested materials included fourteen documents from Harvard's discovery production, twenty-one documents from 10x Genomics' discovery production, and transcripts of depositions of various personnel from Harvard, 10x Genomics, and Bio-Techne.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against three Magna entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 concerning a rotary electric machine with a lubricant reservoir. The court granted the injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease offering, placing on the market, or using infringing rotary electric machines and assemblies in Germany and France, subject to a security of EUR 2,500,000 and with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations.
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) before the Düsseldorf Local Division against three Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604 B1, a European patent relating to a rotary electric machine with angular position adjustment. The court granted the preliminary injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease manufacturing, offering, and selling infringing embodiments, with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations subject to security, and conditioned enforcement on the Applicant providing EUR 2,500,000 in security.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
SodaStream Industries Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 793 917 B1 concerning a device for carbonating liquid with pressurized gas, brought an infringement action against Aarke AB regarding its 'Aarke Carbonator Pro' sparkling water makers. The Local Division Düsseldorf found that the Defendant's product infringed Claim 1 of the patent in suit, rejecting the Defendant's Gillette defense and arguments that the claims should be limited to preferred embodiments. The Court granted injunctive relief, information orders, product surrender/recall, and an interim award of EUR 250,000 in damages, but dismissed the request for publication of the decision in public media.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. The court rejected FUJIFILM Corporation's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional written pleadings in response to the Kodak defendants' arguments on private prior use raised in their Rejoinder. The court held that allowing further submissions would cause unacceptable delay given the oral hearing already scheduled for December 2024, and that FUJIFILM's right to be heard was not unduly restricted as it could respond to new factual allegations during the interim procedure or at the oral hearing.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought leave under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file additional submissions after learning that the defendants were also offering the 'Barryvox S' (in addition to the previously accused 'Barryvox S2') with voice control functionality. The court denied the request, finding no basis to permit further submissions, noting that the plaintiff is already protected by confirmed provisional measures orders regarding the 'Barryvox S2' and retains remedies for any potential violations.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, is represented by Bardehle Pagenberg, with Access Advance LLC intervening as a supporting party. The defendants are fifteen HP entities across multiple European jurisdictions, represented by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas as rapporteur, together with legally qualified judges Dr. Thom and Brinkman, and a technically qualified judge.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Sioen NV (SIOEN) in infringement proceedings brought by TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH (TEXPORT) before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP2186428, relating to tissue construction for protective clothing. SIOEN sought dismissal or stay of the UPC proceedings on the basis of parallel proceedings it had initiated before a Belgian national court, arguing that the Belgian court was first seised. The Court dismissed SIOEN's requests, finding that the parties in the parallel proceedings were not the same and that the conditions for staying or declining jurisdiction under Articles 29, 30, and 31 of the Brussels I recast Regulation were not met.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.,
The Court of Appeal issued an order concerning Belkin's application for suspensive effect (stay) of a first instance order dated September 13, 2024, in a patent infringement action brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. regarding EP 2 867 997. The appeal involved both the Belkin corporate entities and individual managing directors. The court addressed the requirements for applications for suspensive effect, the standard for granting such effect, and the question of whether managing directors of an infringing company can be held liable as intermediaries under Article 63 EPGÜ.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
This procedural order concerns the joinder of a main infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Local Division Brussels. Cretes NV brought an infringement action against Hyler BV, while Hyler BV filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of two European patents (EP 3 993 602 and EP 4 284 152) held by Cretes NV. The court ordered the joint treatment of both proceedings for reasons of efficiency, legal certainty, and at the parties' request, and directed the Rapporteur Judge to take steps for the appointment of a technically qualified judge.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Munich addressed the procedural consequences following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 2 839 083. After the applicant withdrew its request following the oral hearing, the defendants argued they had a legitimate interest in a substantive decision due to defense costs and the imminent filing of a main action. The court held that no legitimate interest existed for a decision after withdrawal, as such a decision would have no res judicata effect and could not prevent new proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order concerning a patent infringement action related to European Patent EP4108782 owned by Harvard College. The plaintiffs (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the content of exhibit BP 34, consisting of a license agreement and related agreements containing highly sensitive business information, be treated as strictly confidential and accessible only to the defendant's legal representatives under an 'Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only' regime. The plaintiffs argued that the information constitutes trade secrets under Article 58 and Article 24(1)(a) of the relevant agreement and EU Directive 2016/943, and noted that the same documents were subject to equivalent restrictions in parallel US proceedings before the District of Delaware.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.Respondent
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application to annul a decision of the European Patent Office regarding patent EP3516914. After the EPO rectified the contested decision, the Court closed the case pursuant to R. 91.2 RoP without ordering reimbursement of the court fee. Qualcomm subsequently sought full or partial reimbursement of the fee, arguing it prevailed in the proceeding and that the case was handled by a single judge before closure of the written procedure. The Court addressed the legal framework governing fee reimbursement under R. 91.2, R. 370.9, and R. 370.11 RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College, v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is an order from the Local Division Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4108782 held by President and Fellows of Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen, Inc. filed a request under Rule 333.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking review by the full panel of the reporting judge's order of August 15, 2024, which had rejected Vizgen's requests for production of documents. The disputed documents relate to non-technical objections, specifically allegations of abuse of rights (Rechtsmissbrauch), and were originally produced in US parallel proceedings.