European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 62 of 67 · 1,592 total
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, the court addressed a procedural motion concerning deadlines in an infringement action involving patent EP3110072. The defendants requested an extension of the opposition period for certain parties due to logistical and administrative reasons. After considering the arguments, the court granted the request, aligning the opposition deadlines across the involved parties. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines when there is consensus among the litigants.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In a preliminary objection hearing, the UPC Central Division addressed arguments concerning whether a standstill agreement could prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The court ruled decisively that violating such an agreement does not equate to a lack of jurisdiction. This ruling clarifies the scope of contractual limitations on judicial proceedings within the UPC framework, emphasizing that procedural agreements cannot override the fundamental ability of the court to hear the case.
CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
In this procedural case, CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. sought simultaneous interpretation for their representatives during revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 681 034 B1. Although the court rejected the broad request for language changes, it granted a specific allowance for Dr. Wim Maas to be interpreted into German at his own cost. This decision highlights the UPC's balance between maintaining procedural integrity in the language of grant and ensuring effective participation for all parties.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.
This procedural order in UPC case UPC_CFI_498/2023 highlights the critical importance of technical precision in infringement claims. The plaintiff (NEC Corporation) was found to have submitted an incorrect standard (AVC instead of HEVC) as evidence of alleged patent infringement. Consequently, the court ordered NEC to amend its statement of claim within 10 days to provide the correct documentation and facilitate service on all parties.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by Volkswagen/Audi and Texas Instruments against Network System Technologies' infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The Court largely rejected jurisdictional challenges, allowing the case to proceed. However, it significantly narrowed the scope of alleged infringement, focusing primarily on the TI DRA79x SoC, while deferring complex issues like UK damages to the main proceedings. This ruling signals a careful application of procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary objection case, Audi AG sought to dismiss an infringement action against Network System Technologies LLC based on jurisdictional issues and the lack of evidence. The Court partially rejected these objections, allowing the core infringement claims to proceed. Crucially, the court emphasized efficiency, deciding that complex matters like UK damages and patent validity must be addressed within the main proceedings rather than being dismissed upfront.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against major automotive and semiconductor players regarding patent EP 1 552 399 B1. The Court partially dismissed NST's arguments concerning jurisdiction, standing, and the scope of infringing embodiments. Crucially, the court ruled that complex issues, such as damages related to the UK market or validity questions already pending elsewhere, must be addressed in the main proceedings to ensure procedural efficiency. This ruling signals a pragmatic approach by the UPC CFI, balancing the need for preliminary filtering with the goal of efficient case management.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary objection case, Volkswagen and Audi (Claimants) sought to dismiss an infringement action against Network System Technologies LLC (Respondent). The Court of First Instance partially rejected these objections. While some initial procedural hurdles were noted, the court emphasized efficiency, ruling that complex issues like damages and validity must be addressed within the main proceedings rather than dismissing the case outright.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by both the claimant (NST) and respondents (VW/Audi, TI). The Court largely rejected motions seeking immediate dismissal of the infringement action as manifestly unfounded. Instead, it applied case management principles to defer complex issues—such as jurisdiction over damages in the UK or patent validity—to the main proceedings. This ruling signals a preference for efficient litigation flow within the UPC system rather than premature termination.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
This UPC decision addresses preliminary objections raised by both parties regarding an infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The Court partially dismissed the motions seeking dismissal of the case as manifestly unfounded, allowing the core infringement claims to proceed. However, it significantly narrowed the scope of alleged infringing products, focusing only on specific models like the TI DRA79x SoC. Furthermore, complex issues regarding jurisdiction and damages were deferred to the main proceedings due to ongoing validity challenges.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance partially rejected the extensive preliminary objections filed by the defendants (VW/Audi and TI) against Network System Technologies LLC. While the court found issues regarding jurisdiction related to the patent's opt-out status and standing for certain historical claims, it ultimately allowed the main infringement proceedings to continue. This decision emphasizes the UPC's commitment to case management efficiency, deferring complex issues like damages and validity to the main trial.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary ruling, Volkswagen AG and its co-claimants challenged Network System Technologies LLC's infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The Court of First Instance partially rejected the defendants' preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and the admissibility of claims. While the court allowed the case to proceed, it narrowed the scope of alleged infringement significantly, focusing primarily on a specific TI DRA79x SoC model. This decision sets the stage for the main proceedings while addressing critical procedural hurdles.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG and Audi AG (and Texas Instruments Incorporated/Deutschland GmbH)
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by Volkswagen/Audi and Texas Instruments against Network System Technologies regarding EP 1 552 669 B1. The Court partially dismissed these objections, allowing the infringement action to proceed in the main proceedings. Key issues addressed included jurisdiction (specifically concerning UK claims) and the admissibility of certain claims and damages. This ruling emphasizes the UPC's commitment to case management efficiency when dealing with complex patent litigation.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed multiple objections raised by both parties regarding an infringement action concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The court largely rejected attempts to dismiss the case outright, instead opting for a pragmatic approach based on efficiency. It ruled that while some initial objections were dismissed, the core issues—including validity and damages claims against TI—must be addressed in the main proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC Local Division in Munich addressed multiple objections raised by Volkswagen AG and its affiliates against Network System Technologies LLC regarding patent EP 1 552 669 B1. The Court partially dismissed these objections, allowing the infringement action to proceed despite initial challenges concerning jurisdiction and standing. This decision emphasizes the UPC's commitment to case management efficiency (Art. 41.3 UPCA), deferring complex issues like damages and UK scope until the main proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC decision addresses preliminary objections raised by both the claimant (NST) and defendants (VW/Audi, TI). The Court largely rejected the arguments that the infringement action should be dismissed as manifestly unfounded. While some jurisdictional issues were noted, the ruling prioritized case management efficiency under Art. 41.3 UPCA, ordering the partial dismissal of preliminary objections. This means the core infringement dispute will proceed to the main proceedings.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed multiple objections raised by both claimants (VW/Audi) and respondents (NST). The court largely rejected procedural challenges regarding jurisdiction and admissibility. Crucially, while allowing the infringement action to proceed, the court significantly narrowed the scope of alleged infringement, limiting it only to specific detailed embodiments like the TI DRA79x SoC. This decision sets a clear precedent for how broad claims must be substantiated in UPC proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling concerning the infringement of EP3611989, Huawei sought court orders to introduce and protect a confidential license agreement with Amazon. The Local Chamber confirmed these provisional measures, granting strict secrecy protection for the document. Crucially, the court also allowed the use of this sensitive licensing information in related split proceedings, balancing commercial needs with IP confidentiality.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this procedural ruling, the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC decided to split the ongoing infringement case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation and Xiaomi entities. The separation was necessitated by the complex international service of process required for defendants located in China and Hong Kong. This decision allows the court to maintain momentum on the main proceedings while awaiting successful service against the non-EU parties, streamlining the overall litigation process.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This UPC decision addressed procedural motions filed by an intervening party, Photon Wave Co., Ltd., in a patent infringement case brought by Seoul Viosys against Laser Components SAS. The court rejected Photon Wave's requests for an extension of time to file a counterclaim for revocation and denied the request to change the language of proceedings. While the core infringement claims remain pending, the ruling clarifies strict procedural limitations on intervening parties under UPC rules.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 207 270, the Local Court Mannheim decided to split the ongoing UPC case into separate proceedings. This decision was driven by difficulties in serving process on defendants located in China and Hong Kong, which would have stalled the entire case. By separating the litigation, the court can maintain momentum against represented parties while waiting for proper service procedures to be completed internationally.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC decided to split the ongoing infringement case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation and Xiaomi Inc. The separation was necessitated by the complex international service of process requirements for defendants located in China and Hong Kong. This decision allows the court to maintain momentum on cases where parties are already represented while addressing the logistical challenges posed by foreign jurisdiction.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division granted a motion for confidentiality concerning sensitive financial and commercial information provided during cost documentation. The Court found that because the respondent did not object, it was permissible to limit access to these 'redacted' documents exclusively to the respondent's legal counsel. This decision reinforces the flexibility of the Unified Patent Court system to protect trade secrets while maintaining procedural fairness.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision is a procedural order in an infringement case concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for 3G and 4G technology. The central conflict involves the determination of FRAND licensing terms, which led to extensive document production requests from both Panasonic and OPPO. The court has mandated that both parties disclose relevant license agreements to allow the tribunal to assess the fairness of the negotiations.