European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 60 of 84 · 2,007 total
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies. The order provides technical and legal guidance to the parties on issues relating to infringement (features 1.1, 1.3.2, and 1.3.3), validity (novelty attacks based on prior art documents FBD-T11a, T11b, T13, and T14), and the plaintiff's request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The parties were given until July 19, 2024 to submit comments on the points raised.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against ten Xiaomi entities. The defendants sought an extension of deadlines for filing their rejoinder and for responding to the nullity counterclaim and patent amendment applications, arguing that the plaintiff's reply still contained redactions. The court partially granted the request, ruling that the deadline for the rejoinder only begins to run upon service of a fully unredacted reply, but rejected the requests to alter or extend the deadlines relating to the nullity counterclaim and patent amendment applications.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement case concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities. The order addresses Panasonic's request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) in connection with its application for an order to produce documents against itself, and the defendants' requests to modify the provisional confidentiality order issued on 09/05/2024.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging that Abbott's FreeStyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitoring system infringed European Patent EP 3 435 866 B1. Abbott filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Court held that the patent lacked inventive step over the prior art and revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissing all of DexCom's infringement claims and ordering DexCom to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1, which protects a sanitary tub installation with C-shaped rim and plastic foam profile strips. The court found that the defendant infringed the patent in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands through its shower tray products and profile strip sets, ordering injunctive relief, recall, removal from distribution channels, information disclosure, and provisional damages of EUR 10,000. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful, with the patent being maintained in amended form, resulting in a 50/50 cost split on the counterclaim and 15/85 split on the infringement claim.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned an application for provisional measures by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 393 417 B1, directed against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The parties reached a settlement during the oral hearing, which the court confirmed pursuant to Rule 365.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The court also ordered a 20% refund of court fees to the Applicant and set the value of the application at 4,000,000 EUR.
AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This case concerns an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning EP 2 479 680. The defendants (AYLO entities) sought to restrict the plaintiffs' (DISH entities) access to information about video streaming processes disclosed in their reply and a witness statement. The court partially granted the application, classifying the streaming-related information as confidential and limiting access on the plaintiffs' side to their legal representatives, internal assistants, external experts upon request, and three specifically named corporate employees.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
Nokia Technology GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 044 709 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. Mala Technologies Ltd. filed an Application to amend the patent within its Defence to revocation but initiated the separate CMS workflow for the amendment application late. The Court rejected Nokia's request to declare the Application to amend inadmissible, holding that ambiguities in the CMS should not prejudice parties and that the amendment application was filed within the prescribed time limit.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, filed a procedural application seeking to have the infringement action declared manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued that the claimant's representative was non-compliant with the code of conduct due to his multiple roles (inventor, original applicant, and Managing Director) and that the statement of claim was insufficient. The Court of First Instance rejected both grounds and dismissed the application.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, relating to LTE mobile communication technology. The court issued directions and questions to the parties regarding claim interpretation under Rule 13(1)(n) RoP, the patent proprietor's response to the nullity counterclaim, the strict preclusion rule under Rule 30.2 RoP for patent amendments, and the legal interest (Rechtsschutzbedürfnis) for the defendants' FRAND counterclaim seeking determination of license rates.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231, requested an extension of time to file its rejoinder to the reply to the defence to revocation until 29 July 2024. The Court rejected the request, holding that the introduction of new prior art documents by the claimants and the existence of a separate counterclaim for revocation before the Hamburg Local Division did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the statutory deadline.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others (UPC_CFI_457/2023)
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 490 258 B1, a HEVC-essential patent held by Dolby International AB and pooled through Access Advance LLC. The court addressed the plaintiff's request to extend the deadlines for filing its reply to the defendants' statement of defense and its defense to the counterclaim for revocation, which had been impacted by a confidentiality protection request (R. 262A RoP) filed by the defendants regarding their FRAND defense and license negotiations with Access Advance. The court extended both deadlines uniformly to September 1, 2024, finding that the plaintiff needed time to consult with Access Advance employees who were initially excluded from access to the confidential filings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought to restrict access to two license agreements (Agreement A & B) submitted as evidence in infringement proceedings against Microsoft Corporation, claiming they contained business secrets of licensees. Microsoft objected on grounds of inadmissibility, arguing the applicant's representative lacked independence under the Code of Conduct. The Court rejected the inadmissibility objection and granted the application, restricting access to the agreements to Microsoft attorneys and directors with a legitimate need.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 covering an antibody for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), sought a preliminary injunction against multiple Amgen entities to stop the marketing of BEKEMV®, a biosimilar of Alexion's Soliris® (eculizumab). While the court found that infringement of claim 2 could be established, it dismissed the application for provisional measures because it was not convinced with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid, particularly given the unresolved question of claim construction regarding SEQ ID NO:4 and the likelihood that the EPO opposition division might revoke the patent.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Samsung Bioepis to prevent the marketing of Epysqli®, a biosimilar of Alexion's Soliris® (eculizumab), alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 relating to antibodies binding complement component 5 (C5) for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. While the court found that infringement of claim 2 could be established, it dismissed the application for provisional measures because it was not convinced with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid, given the likelihood that the EPO opposition division might revoke the patent.
Dolby International AB v.HP PPS Sverige AB and Others
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court allowed Access Advance LLC to intervene as an intervener (Streithelferin) on the side of the plaintiff Dolby International AB in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The court held that Access Advance, as the administrator of the patent pool into which Dolby had contributed the patent-in-suit and which handles FRAND licensing of Dolby's HEVC portfolio, had a direct and present legal interest in the outcome, particularly because the HP defendants had raised a FRAND defense based on alleged inadequacies of Access Advance's license offers.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff Dolby International AB sought a determination that the time limits for filing its reply to the statement of defense and its response to the counterclaim for revocation began running on May 28, 2024, when it was granted access to confidential information, or alternatively, an extension of those deadlines to July 28, 2024. The court extended both deadlines to July 28, 2024, finding that the initial restriction of access to confidential passages of the defendants' pleadings constituted an exceptional case justifying an extension, but rejected the request to deem the time limits as having started on May 28, 2024.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal by Mala Technologies Ltd. against a decision of the Court of First Instance that rejected Mala's preliminary objection in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 044 709 B1. Mala requested a stay of the first instance revocation proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal declared the stay request inadmissible because Mala's written statement did not constitute a 'reasoned request' under Rule 21.2 RoP, and further rejected the request on its merits, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay.
Spyra v.Amycel LLC (Procedural Order on R. 109 RoP)
A procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning a request by the Defendant, Szymon Spyra, for simultaneous interpretation between English and Polish during an oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings. The court rejected the request for court-arranged interpretation under R. 109.1 RoP (whose costs would become costs of the proceedings) but allowed the Defendant to engage an interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd & CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 2 011 218 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ and Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG and the counterclaim for revocation filed by the CUPOWER defendants together in a single proceeding. The decision was based on efficiency considerations, the moderate complexity of the technology, and the need for early assignment of a technically qualified judge.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Curio Bioscience's application for a new order restricting access to confidential information (R.262A RoP) in the appeal proceedings. The court held that a non-appealed R.262A order issued by the Court of First Instance continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, making a new protective order unnecessary when the same information is contained in another document lodged in the appeal. The Registry was instructed to grant access to the unredacted Statement of response only to the persons named in the existing CFI order.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Curio Bioscience's application for a new order restricting access to confidential information under R.262A RoP in the appeal proceedings. The court held that a non-appealed R.262A order from the Court of First Instance continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, making a new protective order superfluous when the same information is already protected. The Registry was instructed to grant access to the unredacted Statement of response only to the persons named in the existing CFI order of 11 March 2024.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP2713879 relating to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on-body devices, sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. for allegedly infringing the patent through the marketing of the GS1 CGM device in Europe. The Local Division The Hague granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a sufficient interest despite a unilateral cease-and-desist declaration, and that the Defendants' GS1 device likely infringed claims 1 and 4 of the patent.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 concerning an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. The court denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC), as claim 1 and its dependent claims extended beyond the disclosure of the original application. Abbott was ordered to bear the defendants' costs, with the value of the dispute set at EUR 4,000,000.