European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 63 of 84 · 2,007 total
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This order concerns a preliminary objection lodged by Tandem Diabetes Care entities (as defendants in a revocation action) seeking dismissal of a revocation action brought by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH concerning European patent EP 2 196 231. Tandem argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to a standstill agreement requiring 90 days' prior written notice before filing IP-related proceedings. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that while the standstill clause was valid and applicable to IP disputes, its violation constitutes a matter of inadmissibility rather than a ground for lack of jurisdiction.
CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
In a nullity action concerning EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, the claimants (CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V.) requested court-ordered simultaneous interpretation from German into Dutch, alternatively English, for an interim hearing and oral hearing. The court rejected the request for court-funded interpretation under Rule 109(1) RoP, finding that the claimants already had three German-speaking legal representatives who had extensively written in German, and that the language skills of one additional representative did not justify court-ordered interpretation. However, the court granted the subsidiary request for interpretation at the claimants' own cost under Rule 109(2) sentence 2 RoP.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd. & Others
Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants (TCL entities) requested that the plaintiff (NEC Corporation) be ordered to submit the HEVC standard version referenced in its statement of claim, as the annex submitted (Annex BP 6) inadvertently contained the predecessor AVC standard instead. The court ordered the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim within 10 days to provide the correct standard version.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The defendants raised issues including invalid opt-out withdrawal, lack of standing, overly broad infringement allegations, and jurisdictional concerns regarding UK damages. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP, partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments seeking dismissal of an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, NST's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) before the Unified Patent Court Local Division in Munich regarding EP 1 552 399 B1, against Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH. The defendants filed preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP and applications under rule 361 RoP, challenging the court's jurisdiction, the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, NST's standing, the scope of allegedly infringing embodiments, and jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding for reasons of case management efficiency.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on preliminary objections and requests filed by the defendants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP and partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, deferring the residual jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG and Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP and partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, deferring the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, Audi AG
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages and claims already pending in US proceedings. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP and partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, deferring the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding for reasons of case management efficiency.
Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages and parallel US proceedings. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications as manifestly unfounded, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the lack of jurisdiction issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC (NST) brought an infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 against Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments entities. The defendants filed preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP and applications under rule 361 RoP seeking dismissal on grounds including invalid opt-out withdrawal, lack of standing, overly broad infringement allegations, and lack of jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 preliminary objections, and deferred certain jurisdictional questions to the main proceeding.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
Huawei sued NETGEAR entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei asserted is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought a production order against itself to introduce a Wi-Fi patent portfolio license agreement with Amazon (dated 5 March 2024) into the proceedings, together with confidentiality protection for its contents. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the provisional production and confidentiality orders and additionally allowed the use of the license agreement and its confidential information in a related parallel proceeding concerning EP 3 678 321.
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, NST's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's authority over UK-related damages claims. The court dismissed the rule 361 RoP requests and partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, deferring certain jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, Audi AG
Network System Technologies LLC (NST) brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 against Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Deutschland, Volkswagen, and Audi. The defendants filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 RoP and applications under Rule 361 RoP, challenging jurisdiction (alleging invalid opt-out withdrawal), NST's standing, the broad scope of allegedly infringing embodiments, and the Court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the Rule 361 applications as manifestly unfounded and partially dismissed the Rule 19 preliminary objections, deferring the residual jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division in Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The defendants challenged the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages claims. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH seeking dismissal of an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The defendants raised issues including invalid opt-out withdrawal, lack of standing, overly broad infringement allegations, and lack of jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications as manifestly unfounded, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the lack of jurisdiction issues to the main proceeding.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request under Rule 262A RoP for a confidentiality order. The applicant Oerlikon sought to protect financial information (document no. 19) filed in preparation for the Interim Conference regarding costs documentation, requesting that access be limited to a 'club' of only Bhagat's lawyers, excluding the party itself. The respondent Bhagat did not oppose the request, and the court granted the confidentiality order, finding the information qualified as confidential under Article 58 UPCA.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. (UPC_CFI_218/2023)
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered the severance of proceedings under Rule 303.2 RoP in a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315 against multiple Xiaomi-related defendants. The court separated the proceedings against the four defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong (Defendants 1, 2, 7, and 8), whose complaints had not yet been served, from the main proceedings against the remaining defendants already represented by counsel, to allow the main case to proceed without delay.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. (UPC_CFI_223/2023)
Order of the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court dated May 6, 2024, concerning EP 2 207 270, separating the proceedings against four Xiaomi defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong from the main proceedings. The separation was ordered under Rule 303.2 RoP because service to those defendants must be effected abroad via the Hague Service Convention, which would delay the proceedings, while the remaining defendants were already represented by counsel.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS (with Photon Wave Co., Ltd. as Intervening Party)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Paris, concerning an infringement action filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. against Laser Components SAS regarding European patent EP3404726. The intervening party, Photon Wave Co., Ltd. (Laser Components' supplier), sought to autonomously file a counterclaim for invalidity, obtain an extension of deadlines, and change the language of proceedings from French to English. The court rejected all of Photon Wave's procedural requests, ruling that an intervenor cannot develop autonomous claims contrary to the party it supports, and that the language change was not justified.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. (EP 2 568 724)
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The court ordered the separation of proceedings against defendants 1, 2, 7, and 8 (Xiaomi entities based in China and Hong Kong) from the main proceedings, because service abroad under the Hague Service Convention would take considerable time and would delay the proceedings against the other defendants who were already represented by counsel.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning standard-essential patents (SEPs) for 3G and 4G standards. The court addressed competing requests from both parties for the production of license agreement evidence relevant to determining whether the plaintiff's licensing demands were FRAND. The court ordered mutual production of certain 4G SEP license agreements while reserving decisions on further requests and confidentiality matters.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Mala Technologies Ltd. (the patent proprietor) in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 2 044 709 B1, which is valid only in Germany. Mala Technologies argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction because a prior revocation action had been filed with the German Federal Patent Court, relying on Articles 29-32 and 71b of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the lis pendens provisions of Article 71c(2) Brussels I Reg recast only apply when both proceedings are initiated during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, and since the German revocation action was filed before that period, the UPC retained jurisdiction.