European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 65 of 67 · 1,592 total
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a case concerning patent infringement, the UPC Local Division issued a final order regarding confidentiality. The court ruled that certain documents containing projected sales results constituted protected trade secrets under EU law. This ruling significantly restricts who can access these sensitive business forecasts during the ongoing litigation, emphasizing the protection of commercial interests within the UPC framework.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC appeal case addressed the scope and continuation of confidentiality protections for sensitive business information. Curio Bioscience sought to restrict access to specific documents during appellate proceedings, but the UPC Board of Appeal found that a prior order from the Court of First Instance already covered these materials. The ruling emphasizes the continuity of protective measures under the UPC framework, preventing parties from seeking redundant relief.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order addressed the protection of confidential information in a trade secret dispute between C-Kore Systems Limited and Novawell. The Court established a confidentiality club to manage documents gathered during a Saisie procedure, ensuring compliance with EU trade secret directives and UPC rules. Crucially, the ruling affirmed that mutual agreement can override strict procedural requirements regarding the composition of the club, provided fairness is maintained.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appellate decision addresses procedural law concerning the review of a Rapporteur's decisions, specifically regarding an 'R.20.2-Unterrichtung' (notification that an opposition should be heard in the main proceedings). The court found that the Rapporteur improperly rejected an application for judicial review (R.333.1 VerfO) on their own authority. This ruling clarifies the strict procedural requirements for challenging a Rapporteur's actions, emphasizing that certain discretionary decisions must be subject to review by the full judicial body.
Belkin Limited v.Not specified (Procedural Order)
This document is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in the UPC. It does not contain any substantive legal findings regarding patent infringement or validity. Instead, it sets new dates for interim and oral hearings, indicating that the case remains active and pending before the court.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This interim order in the revocation action concerning EP3056563 sets crucial procedural groundwork. The Court admitted a key declaration (D18) while imposing strict reply conditions on the Defendants. Additionally, the parties agreed upon the value of the dispute at EUR 4 million for cost assessment purposes. This decision moves the case closer to the oral hearing scheduled for June 2024.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Osaka University
This interim order in a revocation action concerning EP3056564 involved ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE against Healios K.K and Osaka University. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date for June 26, 2024, while also making key procedural decisions. Notably, the court admitted new evidence (D21) and formally set the value of the dispute at EUR 4 million for cost calculation purposes. This order demonstrates the UPC's active management of complex biotech revocation cases.
DexCom, Inc v.Abbott Laboratories
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the admissibility of an appeal against a confidentiality order issued by the Court of First Instance. The Appellants (Abbott) sought to challenge the penalty ceiling set in the order but failed because they had not obtained 'leave to appeal' as required by Rule 220.2 RoP. The court ruled that without this prerequisite authorization, the appeal was inadmissible from its inception.
DexCom, Inc v.Abbott Laboratories
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a fundamental procedural requirement: the necessity of obtaining leave to appeal. The case involved an attempt by Abbott Laboratories to challenge a confidentiality order issued in a patent infringement suit brought by DexCom, Inc. Despite withdrawing their appeal after learning that no leave had been granted, the Court of Appeal ruled it inadmissible from the start. This ruling serves as a strong reminder for practitioners regarding strict adherence to procedural rules when filing appeals within the UPC.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This procedural order in the Paris Local Division addressed a request by Laser Components SAS to extend its deadline for filing its defense statement. The court rejected this request, finding that the defendant could not rely on technical difficulties or the ongoing intervention of a third party (Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.) as grounds for delay. The ruling reinforces the UPC's strict adherence to procedural deadlines and the principle of judicial efficiency.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached between Steindl Krantechnik and BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik regarding EP3287315. The court formally validated the terms of the agreement, which was initially filed as an application for provisional measures. Crucially, both parties successfully requested that the details of this confidential settlement be kept private by the UPC.
NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural correction in an ongoing provisional measures case involving NanoString Technologies and 10x Genomics concerning EP 4108782. The core ruling clarifies the established principles for interpreting European patent claims under Article 69 EPC. It emphasizes that interpretation must be holistic, considering the description and drawings alongside the literal claim language to ensure a balanced outcome between inventor protection and third-party certainty.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appeal addressed a procedural dispute concerning the deadline for a defendant to respond when a claimant expands their lawsuit by adding a new patent. The court emphasized the fundamental principle of due process, holding that defendants must receive equivalent defense opportunities as if a completely new claim had been filed. By overturning the lower court's determination of the start date, the UPC ensured procedural fairness and set a clear, extended deadline for the defendant.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.; NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH; NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal regarding provisional measures for infringement of EP 4 108 782, a patent covering methods for multiplex analyte detection. The court ultimately rejected the injunction request filed by 10x Genomics against NanoString Technologies. Beyond the outcome, the ruling provides important guidance on claim construction, stressing that interpretation must be holistic, integrating the description and drawings with the claims to ensure adequate protection while maintaining legal certainty.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appellate decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning claim expansion in ongoing infringement litigation. Netgear challenged the lower court's determination of the response deadline for Huawei after EP 3678321 was added to the case. The Appellate Court affirmed the principle that defendants must receive full defense rights, but corrected the start date of the period, ensuring procedural fairness and clarity. This ruling provides important guidance on how courts must manage deadlines when expanding patent claims mid-litigation.
Martin Lionel v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request by an individual seeking public access to various documents related to a patent revocation action. The judge-rapporteur rejected the application, clarifying the scope of document disclosure under the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The ruling emphasizes that 'written pleadings and evidence' must be lodged by parties to qualify for Rule 262(1)(b) access, excluding internal Registry communications or court orders.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril GmbH addressed requests for an in-person hearing and state-provided simultaneous interpretation. The claimant ultimately withdrew these demands, agreeing instead to a video conference with privately hired interpreters. The court closed the workstream, confirming that private arrangements are permissible under specific rules.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order addressed an application for review filed by Novawell against a prior evidence preservation (saisie) order initiated by C-Kore Systems Limited regarding EP2265793. Novawell challenged the legality of the seizure, particularly questioning its compliance with French national law and UPC procedures. The Paris Local Division upheld the original order, ruling that the combination of a court-appointed expert and a bailiff satisfied all legal requirements and protected the rights of defense.
ICPillar LLC v.Arm Limited, Apical Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, SVF Holdco (and other ARM group companies)
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action against the ARM group, ICPillar LLC successfully petitioned the UPC Court of First Instance for permission to use an alternative method of service for four UK-based defendants. Since standard international service was pending, the claimant used courier services and bailiff reports to prove delivery. The court accepted this 'good service' request, confirming that procedural flexibility is available when ensuring timely notification in complex cross-border cases.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC Central Division order addressed a procedural dispute during a revocation action concerning EP 3646 825. The core issue was the defendant's attempt to amend its case and patent application late in the proceedings, seeking leave from the court. The panel ultimately sided with the claimant, rejecting the defendant’s request for amendment leave. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to procedural efficiency while applying principles of fairness when managing complex amendments.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Meril Italy srl to extend the written phase of a revocation action against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The claimant sought permission for further pleadings due to new arguments raised by the defendant in its rejoinder. However, the Court ruled that the existing rules governing the written procedure were sufficient and that the request lacked justification under principles of proportionality. This decision reinforces the strict adherence to procedural timelines within UPC revocation actions.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
In a procedural ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed a request by Laser Components SAS to change the language of proceedings from French to English. Although the patent in question (EP3404726) was granted in English, the Court found that there were insufficient grounds based on convenience or equity to mandate this change. The decision reinforces the procedural flexibility and the importance of respecting the initial filing choice made by parties in UPC litigation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request to suspend infringement proceedings due to the insolvency filing (Chapter 11) of one of the defendants. The court rejected the suspension request, establishing a key principle that procedural efficiency and fairness outweigh automatic suspension when the bankruptcy occurs after the oral hearing and the case is ready for judgment. This ruling provides clarity on how UPC procedures interact with foreign insolvency laws.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural challenge concerning the timeliness of an appeal lodged by AIM Sport Development AG against a CFI decision that dismissed its actions. The dispute centers on whether the 15-day deadline set out in R.224.1(b) RoP applies to appeals seeking provisional measures (like preliminary injunctions under Art. 62 UPCA). While AIM sought to overturn the dismissal based on competence, the Court has paused proceedings to determine if the appeal itself is procedurally admissible due to a missed deadline.