European UPC IP Litigation
1,878 annotated decisions
Page 63 of 79 · 1,878 total
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division – First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_380/2024 Procedural Order in a Review proceeding of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/09/2024. APPLICANT/S in the REVIEW proceedings 1) EOFLOW Co., Ltd. 302Ho, HUMAX VILLAGE
KIPA AB v.Respondent
SWAT Medical AB, a medical device company based in Sweden, filed an application seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 4 151 181, which was the subject of a revocation action between the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The applicant claimed a direct interest as a competitor and board member/investor in cardiac implant technology, citing concerns about a third-party product under development potentially covered by the patent's claims. The respondents (the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) opposed the application, with the Meril entities jointly requesting rejection and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation seeking dismissal.
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1 regarding the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the Rejoinder and specific exhibits as confidential and restricted access to designated representatives of the Applicant, Valeo Electrification. The court denied the Applicant's request to grant access to an additional lawyer, Thierry Lautier, who was not actively involved in the proceedings.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Volkswagen AG's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to dismiss infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Volkswagen had raised preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and the validity of opt-out withdrawals, and had sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP on grounds that NST lacked standing and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to defer preliminary objections to the main proceedings, and that Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and does not require a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an unnamed applicant's request under Rule 262.1(b) for access to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation as claimant and Meril Lifesciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB as defendants, relating to European Patent EP2628464. The applicant claimed to be a board member and investor in a medical device company in the cardiac implant technology field, seeking access as a competitor concerned about the patent's validity. Edwards Lifesciences opposed the request, arguing it lacked a concrete, verifiable, and legitimate reason, and referenced prior decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi-Aventis and Ocado v. AutoStore. The order addresses the principles of public access under Article 45 UPCA and the requirements for granting access under Rule 262.1(b).
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc. v.Ona Patents SL
This appeal concerned Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division regarding EP 2 263 098. The President of the Court of First Instance had rejected Apple's application on 18 June 2024, finding that Ona had relevant reasons to file in German given its contact person's language skills, the location of defendants' offices, and parallel German-language proceedings. On appeal, the Court of Appeal clarified that when assessing a language change request on fairness grounds, the internal working language of the parties and their ability to coordinate internally and obtain technical support are relevant circumstances, while the existence of other proceedings between the parties before a national court is of less relevance.
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
This case concerns an appeal by Google against the rejection of its application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in patent infringement proceedings initiated by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of First Instance had denied Google's request, finding that Ona had legitimate reasons to file in German, including its contact person's fluency in German and parallel proceedings in Munich. The Court of Appeal addressed the additional circumstances relevant to a fairness-based change of language request under Article 49(5) UPCA.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Audi AG's appeal against orders of the Munich Local Division that had dismissed Audi's preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP in three parallel patent infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Audi had argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over damages claimed in the UK and Northern Ireland, that the opt-out withdrawal was invalid due to lack of power of attorney, that NST lacked standing for pre-acquisition damages, and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the timing of preliminary objection decisions is within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and not for evaluating the sufficiency of claim substantiation.
Dexcom Inc. v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego - US Statement of c
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Respondent
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from prior proceedings in which Ballinno B.V. had sought provisional measures against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH concerning European Patent EP1944067. The Claimant did not comment on the request, while the Defendants did not object provided that sensitive technical data constituting trade secrets was redacted. The Court addressed the application for public access to the court documents, balancing transparency with the protection of confidential information.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Audi AG's applications for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court held that NST, a small US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity with only two employees, no physical assets, and limited funding, failed to provide sufficient comfort that a possible cost order would be recoverable. The Court ordered NST to provide security for costs in amounts of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000, and EUR 300,000 in the three related proceedings, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank, within three weeks of service.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on September 17, 2024, rejecting the plaintiff's application to examine its own party expert as a witness in the oral hearing. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sought this examination in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724 against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., arguing that the deadline for its replication on the FRAND counterclaim was insufficient to address the defendants' expert opinion. The court held that the application was filed after the close of the interim proceedings and that the procedure of examining one's own party expert as a witness is not provided for in the Rules of Procedure.
Dexcom International Limited v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego - US Statement of c
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This appeal concerned a dispute over European patent EP 2 044 709 B1, which had effect only in Germany. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that while Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply to UPC proceedings during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, they did not require the UPC to decline jurisdiction because the German revocation action and the UPC proceedings did not involve the same parties. However, the Court of Appeal granted Mala's auxiliary request to stay the UPC revocation proceedings pending a final decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the parallel German revocation proceedings.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Volkswagen AG appealed orders of the Munich Local Division dated 23 April 2024 that had denied Volkswagen's applications for security for costs in three related patent infringement proceedings involving European Patents EP 1 875 683, EP 1 552 399, and EP 1 552 669. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, finding that NST had failed to provide sufficiently substantiated information demonstrating it could cover a possible cost order, and that NST's status as an SME did not exempt it from providing security. The Court ordered security in reduced amounts of EUR 100,000 in two cases and EUR 300,000 in the third, payable within three weeks by deposit or EU bank guarantee.
Meril Italy srl, Meril GmbH, Meril Life Science Private Limited v.Respondent
Central Division Paris Seat ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central division (Paris seat) issued on 17 September 2024 concerning the generic procedural applications Nos. App_45333/2024 and 51629/2024 lodged in the proceedings UPC_CFI_189/2024 APPLICANT
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG RESPONDENT Himson Engineering Private Limited PATENT AT ISSUE Patent no. P
*** v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance, Local Division Brussels, in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 331 036. The order was issued following an Interim Conference held on 6 September 2024 under Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure. The court explored the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, noting willingness on the plaintiff's side and limited willingness on the defendants' side, primarily due to substantial costs already incurred.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
This is an interim procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the preparation of oral hearings in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, is proceeding against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The order sets out the scheduling and structural framework for the oral hearing, dividing it into a first day dedicated to technical issues (uniform interpretation of the patent, validity, and infringement by standard) and a second day addressing FRAND-related matters, including the FRAND counterclaim.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the preparation and structuring of the oral hearing in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sues several Xiaomi entities and other defendants. The presiding judge coordinated the hearing date and provided detailed instructions on the structure of the proceedings, with the first day dedicated to technical aspects (uniform interpretation of the patent, validity, and standard-essential infringement) and the second day to FRAND-related issues.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.Respondent
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) against ITCiCo Spain S.L. regarding European Patent EP 2 796 333, which relates to a graded control signal system for warning vehicle users of speeding conditions. The claimant sought a decision by default under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure after the defendant failed to submit any request or defense. The court examined the conditions for issuing a default decision, considering the requirements of Rule 355 and the discretionary assessment under Rule 335.
ICPillar LLC v.SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Germany GmbH, Apical Limited, Arm Sweden AB, ARM Limited
ICPillar LLC appealed a Court of First Instance order requiring it to provide security for costs (EUR 400,000) in its patent infringement action against ARM entities before the Paris Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the Insurance Policy submitted for the first time on appeal would be disregarded under R.222.2 RoP, and that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank did not constitute adequate security under R.158 RoP.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Microsoft Corporation for review and setting aside of an order restricting access to documents deemed business secrets in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The respondent, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, had successfully obtained a confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, limiting access to certain Microsoft attorneys and directors. Microsoft filed alternative requests including dismissal of the Rule 262A application, a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on representative independence requirements, amendment of the access list, and leave to appeal. The available text of the order is incomplete and does not contain the panel's full reasoning or operative ruling.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application with the Court of First Instance of the UPC Paris Central Division seeking annulment of a decision of the European Patent Office (EPO) dated 10 July 2024, made in carrying out tasks under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012. The Court forwarded the application for interlocutory revision to the EPO, which subsequently rectified the contested decision in accordance with the Claimant's request. As the Claimant did not identify any particular circumstances justifying reimbursement, the Court closed the case without prior consultation of the parties.