European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 65 of 84 · 2,007 total
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG and Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The defendants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for security for legal costs against the plaintiff Network System Technologies LLC (NST) under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP in a patent infringement action concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The Local Division in Munich dismissed the applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of difficulties in enforcing a cost order in the United States or of NST's insolvency, and that NST's patent portfolio acquired from Philips constituted seizable intangible assets.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application for intervention (Streithilfe) by Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., the parent company and simple licensee of the plaintiff Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. The court held that the intervention application was admissible, finding that a simple licensee has a legal interest in intervening on the plaintiff's side to prevent the patent from being retroactively revoked via a nullity counterclaim, and that when a Local Chamber decides to hear the infringement action and nullity counterclaim together, the licensee may intervene in the entire proceedings.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, and MediaTek Inc.
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned a dispute over the method of serving process on three defendants domiciled outside the contracting member states. The claimant sought to serve Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., and MediaTek Inc. via their respective German branch offices under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The court dismissed the request, holding that service on defendants domiciled outside the contracting member states must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP, requiring first an attempt at service under the Hague Service Convention or diplomatic channels.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) that had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The appeal concerned proceedings in which 10x Genomics sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience regarding EP 2 697 391. The Court of Appeal held that the lower court's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of fairness under Article 49(5) EPGÜ and ordered English as the language of proceedings.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics Sarl v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This order concerns an application by the defendants (Advanced Bionics entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by MED-EL regarding European Patent EP4074373 ('MRI-safe disk magnet for implants'). The President of the Court of First Instance declared the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that the circumstances cited by the defendants resulted from their own strategic choices and did not demonstrate significant disadvantage justifying a change of language.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This is a procedural language dispute before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs (Roche entities) chose German as the procedural language, and multiple defendants objected, seeking a change to English. The court rejected all objections, holding that the plaintiffs' choice of German was valid under Art. 49(2) UPCA and Rule 14.2 RoP, and that the defendants' objections were either unfounded or, in the case of defendants 3-5, also filed out of time.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned objections filed by several defendants seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. The court rejected all objections, holding that the plaintiffs' choice of German as the procedural language was valid under Article 49(2) EPGÜ and Rule 14.2(a) RoP, and that the exceptions in Rule 14.2(b) did not apply since Germany does not designate any official language other than German. The court further held that the objection by Defendants 3, 4, and 5 was time-barred because their submissions were not received by the Sub-Registry within the extended deadline.
SVF Holdco Limited v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Paris Local Division against twelve defendants, including SVF Holdco Limited and various Arm group entities, concerning European Patent EP 3 000 239. Several defendants filed preliminary objections challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division, arguing that the commercial relationship requirement under Article 33(1)(b) UPCA was not met and that some defendants were domiciled outside the Contracting Member States. The Court rejected the preliminary objections, holding that Article 33(1)(b) UPCA applies whenever one of multiple defendants is domiciled in the territory of the Local Division, and that belonging to the same corporate group with related commercial activities constitutes a sufficient commercial relationship.
Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG v.Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Toyota's request for a decision by default against Neo Wireless's appeal of an order rejecting Neo's preliminary objection to the UPC's jurisdiction. The court held that Neo had timely corrected formal deficiencies and that the 15-day deadline for filing a statement of appeal under R.224.1(b) RoP runs from the date of service of the decision granting leave to appeal, not from the date of the impugned order.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore AS and Others
This case concerns an appeal by Ocado Innovation Limited against an order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division granting a member of the public access to the statement of claim in infringement proceedings Ocado had brought against multiple Autostore entities. The Court of Appeal addressed two issues: the composition of its panel under Art. 9(1) UPCA, and public access to written pleadings and evidence under R.262.1(b) RoP. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a panel of three legally qualified judges may decide purely non-technical matters, and that the balance of interests favored granting access to the statement of claim.
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 order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed the date of service of the appeal and statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings concerning EP 3 611 989. Due to a misconfiguration of the Case Management System (CMS) for service in appeal proceedings, Xiaomi's representative was unaware that service had occurred on March 13, 2024. The court clarified that, in the interest of due process and legal certainty, the date of service was deemed to be April 3, 2024, when Xiaomi's representative accessed the CMS and voluntarily accepted service.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1 concerning an avalanche victim search device (LVS), sought provisional measures against Mammut Sports Group regarding the 'Barryvox S2' device. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf maintained the preliminary injunction of December 11, 2023, ordered the respondents to provisionally reimburse costs of EUR 33,375.70, and rejected the respondents' counter-application for provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 19,858.40.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (PMA) sought ex parte orders to preserve evidence and inspect the premises of AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2726230. After the orders were executed in October 2023, PMA failed to commence proceedings on the merits within the prescribed time limits and only requested access to the expert report in February 2024. The Local Division in Milan held the application for disclosure inadmissible, revoked the provisional measures, ordered restitution of the evidence, and awarded EUR 10,000 in legal fees against PMA.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding a Rule 9.3 RoP extension request in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 669 828. The defendants requested a three-week extension of the deadline to file their Statement of Defence, citing the recent change of language of proceedings from German to English. The court rejected the extension request, finding that the defendants failed to substantiate why the one-month period between the language change and the filing deadline was insufficient.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
This is an order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) issued on 5 April 2024 in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. Following an interim conference held on 2 April 2024, the judge-rapporteur set out procedural decisions regarding the validity of the priority claim, the admissibility of amendments, late-filed attacks, the value of the proceedings, and the scheduling of the oral hearing.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns a request by FUJIFILM Corporation to extend the time period for filing its reply to the defendants' Statement of defence, Counterclaims for revocation, and application to amend European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. The defendants had filed confidential information related to alleged private prior use and business figures, and access was initially restricted to the claimant's representatives. The court granted the extension until 28 May 2024, finding that the delayed and restricted access to confidential information constituted an exceptional case justifying the extension.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court against five European patents owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., but mistakenly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' in the statements for revocation. The Court of First Instance rejected Juul Labs International's preliminary objection and ordered rectification of the defendant's name. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor of the patents.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions against Juul Labs International, Inc. at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, but incorrectly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' instead of 'Juul Labs International, Inc.' The Court of First Instance allowed rectification of the defendant's name, and Juul Labs International appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor of the patents at issue.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court against five European patents owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., but mistakenly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' in the statements for revocation. The Court of First Instance rejected Juul Labs' preliminary objection and ordered rectification of the defendant's name. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor, and Juul Labs was not unreasonably prejudiced.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court against 'Juul Labs, Inc.' in respect of five European patents. The actual registered proprietor of the patents was Juul Labs International, Inc., which filed a preliminary objection arguing the actions were improperly directed. The Court of First Instance rejected the objection and ordered rectification of the defendant's name. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor, and Juul Labs International was not unreasonably prejudiced. The Court also held that no order for costs would be made in this non-final appellate decision.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 838 002. The claimant (Avago) sued the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) for patent infringement, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court ordered that the main infringement action and both revocation counterclaims be heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, rejecting the option of referral to the Central Division since the claimant did not consent.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions against 'Juul Labs, Inc.' before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The actual registered proprietor of the patents at issue was Juul Labs International, Inc., which filed a preliminary objection arguing the actions were inadmissible. The Court of First Instance allowed rectification of the defendant's name, and Juul Labs International, Inc. appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that the revocation actions were intended to be directed against the registered proprietor.
Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE and Tesla Germany GmbH v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a confidentiality order issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP1612910. The defendants (Tesla entities) sought to have certain information in their Rejoinder, specifically projected sales results for a potential twelve-month enforcement period, classified as trade secrets with restricted access under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the application, restricting access to the claimant's legal representatives and three named persons employed at Broadcom Inc., replacing the earlier preliminary order of 11 March 2024.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court in Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_54/2023) involving European Patent EP1612910 held by Avago Technologies. The defendants (Tesla entities) sought a confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect projected sales result information contained in their rejoinder. The court granted the application, declaring the information strictly confidential and limiting access to the claimant's legal representatives and three named persons employed at Broadcom Inc.