European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 61 of 67 · 1,592 total
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion concerning the admissibility of evidence regarding corporate authority and patent assignment validity in an underlying dispute. The court ruled that while general power of attorney documents were provided, specific Board of Directors' resolutions authorizing the transfer of the disputed patent were necessary for the respondent to properly assess the claimant's legal standing. This highlights the critical importance of internal corporate governance documentation in complex IP litigation.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co, Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural issue of partially withdrawing an appeal against multiple defendants in a patent infringement case. Nera Innovations sought to withdraw its appeal specifically against two EU-based Xiaomi entities (NL and DE), arguing they lacked legitimate interest due to prior service of process. The court rejected this request, emphasizing that even if some parties are not directly affected by the procedural change, their right to due process must be protected. This ruling reinforces the importance of considering all stakeholders' interests when managing complex multi-defendant litigation in the UPC.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
Ballinno B.V. sought a provisional injunction against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH regarding its patent covering methods for detecting offside situations using sound signals in sports. The UPC Court of First Instance dismissed the application for provisional measures. The court's decision highlighted the importance of demonstrating urgency when pursuing infringement claims, noting that a prolonged period without significant efforts to clarify potential infringement can be detrimental. This ruling serves as a cautionary note regarding procedural diligence in urgent patent litigation.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Samsung Electronics to change the language of proceedings from German to English, matching the language in which the patent was granted. The court found that while both parties faced some disadvantages, retaining German placed a greater burden on Samsung, who needed to prepare its defense in English. Consequently, the application was granted, setting the stage for the main infringement proceedings to proceed in English.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical procedural issue of staying revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings at the EPO. The court clarified that while harmonization is a goal, it does not mandate a stay simply because parallel actions exist. Crucially, acceleration requests by the patent proprietor are insufficient; the applicant must demonstrate an expectation of a rapid decision to justify halting UPC litigation.
Unnamed Claimant v.NEC Corporation
This UPC CFI decision addressed procedural disputes in an infringement case involving HEVC standards. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant's failure to upload the correct standard version alongside the Statement of Claim violated Rule 13.2, justifying a request for an extension of their defense deadline. The Court upheld this principle, granting the extension while rejecting other claims by the Claimant regarding deadlines and technical references.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings. The court found that the arguments presented were too vague and lacked sufficient substantiation to justify shortening any deadlines under R.9.3(b). This order highlights the strict requirements parties must meet when seeking procedural acceleration within the UPC framework.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Audi AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Audi argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The court found that the request lacked sufficient specificity and substantiation, upholding procedural norms and protecting the interests of the respondent, NST.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition made by Texas Instruments during an appeal concerning security for costs. The court rejected the motion, finding that the arguments presented were too vague and lacked sufficient substantiation to justify shortening any deadlines in the ongoing proceedings. This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for requesting procedural acceleration within the UPC framework.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
In a procedural matter concerning an appeal, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings and shorten deadlines. Volkswagen argued that delays were causing increased legal costs related to security for costs. The court ruled that the request lacked sufficient substantiation and specificity, emphasizing adherence to established procedural timelines and principles of proportionality.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Texas Instruments sought to accelerate the appeal process, arguing that delays increased its legal costs while awaiting security for costs. The court ultimately rejected this plea, finding the request too vague and lacking sufficient justification to override standard procedural timelines.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Texas Instruments sought to shorten deadlines due to ongoing legal costs related to the appeal against a security for costs dismissal. The court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the application was too vague and lacked sufficient justification to warrant altering the established timelines.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Audi AG sought to accelerate the appeal process against an earlier dismissal of its security for costs application. The court rejected this request, finding that it was too vague and lacked sufficient justification to warrant shortening deadlines. This highlights the strict requirements for requesting expedited proceedings within the UPC framework.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural order concerning an appeal against a dismissal of a security for costs application, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Volkswagen argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The court found that the request lacked sufficient specificity and substantiation, upholding procedural norms and protecting the respondent's interests.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Audi AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Audi argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b). The court found the request lacked sufficient substantiation and specificity, upholding standard procedural timelines.
Dyson Technology Ltd. v.SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Ltd. sought interim injunctions against SharkNinja for alleged infringement of EP 2 043 492, a patent covering hand-held vacuum cleaners. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the claims of both parties, meaning no provisional injunction was granted. Beyond the specific outcome, the decision provided important procedural guidance on timing and scope when applying for interim measures in UPC proceedings. This ruling reinforces the need for careful case preparation while acknowledging the practical constraints of summary relief.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning SEP EP 3096315, the court addressed a request by the defendants for extensive document disclosure related to the claimant's licensing history. The court ultimately rejected most of these requests, finding them too vague or superseded by the parties' own actions. This ruling reinforces the principle that while transparency is important in FRAND negotiations, broad demands for historical portfolio data are not automatically granted and must be narrowly tailored.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.***
This UPC decision addressed a revocation action concerning EP 3 170 639 B1, which ultimately became moot when the patent holder voluntarily withdrew the patent. The court analyzed the equitable distribution of costs, noting that it is generally unfair to charge costs to a patent owner who withdraws immediately upon seeing relevant prior art presented in the lawsuit. Despite this finding regarding equity, the claimant was ordered to bear the procedural costs.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. v.Plant-e Knowledge B.V.
This UPC decision addresses an application for the protection of confidential information (a 'confidentiality club' request) within ongoing infringement proceedings. Arkyne Technologies S.L. successfully argued that its experimental data regarding Bioo Panels constituted a protected trade secret. The court granted this request, establishing strict access controls and imposing significant penalty payments for any breach of confidentiality.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This UPC decision addresses an application for protection of confidential information filed by Arkyne Technologies S.L. The Court of First Instance found that specific experimental data regarding Bioo Panels qualified as a trade secret under Article 58 UPCA. Access to this sensitive information was strictly restricted, creating a 'confidentiality club' limited to key personnel and legal representatives of the defendant (Plant-e). This ruling reinforces the court's power to protect proprietary business knowledge during complex litigation.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This UPC decision addresses applications for provisional measures in a dispute involving sports technology patents. The Court upheld the defendants' right to request security for costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA, setting the required amount at €56,000. Crucially, the Panel dismissed the request for a technically qualified judge, asserting its own competence to handle the physics-related issues given the complexity and time sensitivity of the case.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finland Oy, HP Italy S.r.l., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD
Dolby International AB initiated infringement proceedings against various HP entities regarding the European patent EP 3 490 258 B1, which covers HEVC video decoding technology. During the litigation, Dolby sought to restrict its claims to exclude products utilizing NVIDIA graphics cards. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted this request, formally narrowing the scope of the lawsuit. This decision is significant as it demonstrates how claimants can strategically refine their infringement allegations within the UPC framework.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This procedural order from the UPC Court of First Instance addresses the balance between public transparency and the protection of confidential business information during an infringement case. The court confirmed that while proceedings are generally public, it retains the power to limit access during the interim conference if sensitive data is discussed. This decision provides clear guidance on how parties can manage their proprietary information within the UPC framework.
VusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
VusionGroup SA appealed a decision rejecting its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology regarding EP 3883277, which covers electronic price labels. The UPC Board of Appeal found that the products manufactured by Hanshow did not meet all the technical requirements defined in the patent claims. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the initial rejection and holding VusionGroup liable for legal costs.