European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 63 of 67 · 1,592 total
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a preliminary objection raised by Mala Technologies Ltd. in a revocation action against Nokia Technology GmbH concerning EP 2 044 709 B1. The Court rejected the objection, thereby confirming its jurisdiction and allowing the main proceedings to continue. Crucially, the ruling also denied requests for procedural delays, such as staying the case pending decisions from the German Federal Court of Justice or extending deadlines. This reinforces the UPC's commitment to timely and efficient dispute resolution.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl; SCHNELL S.p.A.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to an appeal filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against an earlier decision. The original decision had revoked provisional measures for evidence preservation and ordered the return of gathered evidence. The court ruled that allowing immediate enforcement would severely undermine the Appellant's ability to successfully challenge the order. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the judicial discretion available under UPC rules to prevent procedural outcomes from becoming moot.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for an extension of time to lodge grounds of appeal in the main infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_169/2024). Daedalus Prime LLC sought additional time, arguing the complexity of the legal issues and potential precedent implications. The Panel ultimately denied this request, reinforcing the principle that parties must present thorough arguments proactively rather than relying on procedural delays to gather external opinions.
Keestrack N.V. v.Geha Laverman B.V.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court granted the mutual request by Keestrack N.V. and Geha Laverman B.V. to withdraw the infringement action (UPC_CFI_379/2023). The court formally closed the case under Rule 265 RoP. Crucially, the panel also ruled in favor of the claimant's request for a partial refund of court fees, awarding 60% reimbursement based on the early stage of the proceedings.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a dispute over the scope of patent amendments during revocation proceedings. The respondent (Carrier Corporation) sought to amend the patent to include claims beyond those challenged by the claimant (BITZER Electronics A/S). The panel ultimately ruled that these non-challenged amendments were inadmissible. This reinforces the principle that defensive measures in UPC litigation must remain proportional and confined to the scope of the initial dispute.
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
This decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a motion for disclosure of confidential licensing agreements in an SEP dispute. The court ruled that, given the context of standard-essential patent enforcement and EU competition law requirements (FRAND), the claimant must submit these contracts to the court. While acknowledging confidentiality concerns, the court mandated the submission while allowing parties to redact irrelevant information, thereby facilitating a fair assessment of the licensing terms.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this UPC case concerning nucleic acid detection technology, 10x Genomics sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an injunction, confirming the validity and scope of EP 2 697 391 B1. However, the court imposed strict conditions for enforcement, requiring 10x Genomics to post a substantial security deposit of EUR 2 million. This decision highlights the high threshold required for obtaining provisional relief in UPC infringement cases.
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
This decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a motion for disclosure of confidential licensing agreements in an SEP dispute involving Panasonic and Xiaomi entities. The court ruled that, given the necessity to assess compliance with EU competition law (FRAND), the claimant must submit these contracts. This ruling reinforces the principle that judicial oversight can override contractual confidentiality clauses when fundamental legal requirements, such as those governing SEPs, are at stake.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825, the UPC Central Division addressed a complex procedural issue regarding subsequent patent amendments. The Court ruled that while it possesses discretionary power to admit these late requests, this must be done fairly and without prejudicing the opposing party's right of defence. This decision highlights the delicate balance between allowing patentees to refine their claims and ensuring due process in UPC litigation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this provisional measures case, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf examined a dispute over EP 2 697 391 B1, which covers methods for localized nucleic acid detection. Although the Applicant (10x Genomics) sought various remedies, including costs security and injunctions, the court largely rejected these requests. The final order is highly conditional: while provisional cost reimbursement was ordered, enforcement of any measures requires the Applicant to first deposit EUR 2 million with the Defendant.
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
This decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a procedural request by Panasonic Holdings Corporation to compel the disclosure of confidential licensing agreements in an SEP dispute against Xiaomi entities. The court recognized the conflict between contractual confidentiality clauses (often governed by US law) and the need for transparency required under EU competition law (FRAND). Ultimately, the court granted the order for document submission but allowed redactions, setting a precedent for managing sensitive information in complex UPC patent litigation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order in the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) addresses a request by both parties to change the language of the ongoing infringement case. The claimant, 10x Genomics, Inc., initiated proceedings against Curio Bioscience Inc. regarding EP 2 697 391 B1. Both parties mutually agreed to switch the procedural language from German to English, which the court subsequently approved.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the time limit for lodging an appeal against an order from the Court of First Instance (CFI). The appellant, AIM Sport Development AG, argued that the CFI's own 'Information about appeal' stated a two-month deadline, even though the strict rule (R.224.1(b) RoP) mandated only 15 days for certain orders. Applying the principle of legitimate expectations, the Court of Appeal sided with AIM, finding the appeal admissible. This ruling highlights the importance of procedural fairness and how courts must interpret rules when CFI guidance creates a reasonable expectation.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG to stay revocation proceedings against EP 3 876 490 pending parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO. The Court ultimately rejected the stay application, emphasizing that 'rapid decision' must mean a concrete and near-future expectation from the EPO. The ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to expeditious justice, prioritizing the right holder's interest in timely legal certainty over potential cost savings for the defendant.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the disclosure of a confidential Qualcomm licensing agreement relevant to an ongoing Wi-Fi infringement case. Despite the court dismissing both sides' requests for mandatory disclosure, it issued comprehensive protective orders. These rulings emphasize the importance of balancing litigation needs with the protection of trade secrets in high-tech patent disputes.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V and Juul Labs International Inc.
This order addressed a request for public access to documents under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, stemming from parallel EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3430921. The Applicant argued that parties in EPO oppositions needed full visibility into UPC revocation actions to protect their interests and uphold natural justice. While the court granted access to existing materials in the CMS, it firmly rejected requests for future documents or non-decision/order court-generated materials, citing a lack of legal basis and practical concerns.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an application for provisional measures in the Düsseldorf Local Division, the UPC addressed the complex issue of language change mid-litigation. Although the Court of Appeal had set English as the official language after the oral hearing was conducted in German, the court made an exceptional ruling. It allowed the final decision to be issued in German, provided it included a certified English translation, thereby balancing procedural fairness with the need for judicial efficiency.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In a decision concerning security for costs, the UPC Local Division in Munich rejected the request made by Network System Technologies LLC against Volkswagen AG and Texas Instruments. The court ruled that general concerns about enforcing judgments in the US were insufficient to warrant requiring security from the claimant. This ruling reinforces the principle of access to justice within the UPC, balancing IP protection with the right to a fair hearing.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In a decision concerning security for legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Munich dismissed the application filed by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). NST argued that its limited financial resources and the complexities of enforcing judgments in the US made it an unsuitable party to bear the cost security. The court countered this by emphasizing the general enforceability of UPC decisions abroad and noting that NST failed to provide concrete evidence of insolvency or enforcement difficulties, ultimately upholding the claimant's right to access justice.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this procedural matter, the Court of First Instance examined requests by both parties for security for legal costs under Article 69.4 UPCA. The respondent (NST), a US-based company, argued that enforcement difficulties and its limited financial standing warranted the security. However, the court rejected these arguments, finding that general claims about US enforcement risks were unsubstantiated and that the claimant possessed sufficient assets to cover potential costs.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In a decision concerning security for legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Munich rejected the request by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide collateral against potential future cost orders. NST argued that its small size and US domicile made enforcement of judgments difficult. The Court countered this by stating that general concerns about foreign judgment enforcement were unfounded and found no evidence of NST's actual insolvency risk, thereby upholding the Claimant's right to access justice.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This Munich Local Division decision addressed multiple requests for security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA, primarily filed by the US-based defendant Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court rejected NST's arguments that its limited financial resources and the complexities of enforcing judgments in the USA warranted a cost security order. The ruling emphasizes that general concerns about foreign enforcement are insufficient; applicants must provide concrete evidence of actual risk or difficulty to justify restricting access to justice.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In a decision concerning security for legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Munich rejected the request made by Network System Technologies LLC against Volkswagen AG and Audi AG. The court held that general allegations regarding enforcement difficulties in the US were insufficient to justify requiring the claimant (NST) to provide security. This ruling reinforces the principle of access to justice within the UPC framework, particularly for SMEs.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this procedural matter, the Court of First Instance rejected requests from both Volkswagen/Audi and Texas Instruments for security for legal costs against Network System Technologies LLC. The court emphasized that general concerns about enforcing UPC judgments in the US are insufficient grounds to impose a cautio on claimants. This decision reinforces the principle that access to justice must be balanced against the need to protect IP rights, particularly for SMEs.