European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 66 of 84 · 2,007 total
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Curio Bioscience's application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to confidential information to certain persons during appeal proceedings. The court rejected the application as superfluous, holding that the Local Division Düsseldorf's final confidentiality order of March 11, 2024, which was not appealed, already extended to the appeal proceedings and adequately protected the information in question.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Novawell v.C-Kore Systems Limited
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP2265793, owned by C-Kore Systems Limited. Following a Saisie Order issued on 14 November 2023, the parties agreed on the composition of a confidentiality club to review seized documents containing trade secrets. The Court approved the parties' agreed list of persons, holding that while Rule 262A RoP requires at least one natural person from each party, parties may mutually agree to exclude natural persons from the parties themselves, provided the principle of fair trial is preserved.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bisscience Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning procedural matters in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 611 989. The Court of Appeal set aside the Rapporteur's order rejecting as inadmissible the defendants' request for panel review of a R.20.2 RoP notification, holding that the Rapporteur should have submitted the review request to the panel for decision under R.333.4 RoP. The matter was remanded to the panel of the Local Division Munich.
Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc. v.Ex Parte
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 15 May 2024 in case UPC_CFI_62/2023. The order schedules an interim hearing for 11 September 2024 and postpones the oral hearing from 11 July 2024 to 23 October 2024, both to be held in Munich.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Osaka University and Healios K.K.
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. EP3056564, owned by Healios K.K and Osaka University, brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. Following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024, the judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order addressing the admissibility of a second declaration (D21), setting the value of the dispute at EUR 4,000,000 for cost ceiling purposes, establishing deadlines for cost-related submissions, and confirming the oral hearing date for 26 June 2024.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This is a procedural order from the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP3056563, owned by Healios K.K, Riken, and Osaka University. Following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024, the judge-rapporteur issued orders regarding the admission of evidence, the value of the dispute, costs submissions, and the confirmation of the oral hearing date.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3404726. The defendant Laser Components SAS requested an extension of the deadline to file its statement of defense, citing technical difficulties experienced by the intervening third party Photon Wave Co., Ltd. and the need for coordination. The court rejected the request, holding that the intervenor had not suffered prejudice and that the defendant had not demonstrated its own technical difficulties, and ordered Laser Components to submit its defense brief by March 18, 2024.
Abbott Laboratories and Others v.DexCom, Inc
The appellants, a group of Abbott entities, filed an appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP contesting the €50,000 penalty ceiling set by the Paris Local Division's confidentiality order in a patent infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. After learning that the Court of First Instance had not granted leave to appeal, the appellants withdrew the appeal. The President of the Court of Appeal held that without leave to appeal, the appeal was inadmissible from the outset and could not be withdrawn, and accordingly rejected it as inadmissible.
Abbott Laboratories and Others v.DexCom, Inc (UPC_CoA_5/2024)
The Abbott entities appealed a confidentiality order issued by the Paris Local Division in patent infringement proceedings brought by DexCom, contesting the €50,000 penalty ceiling as too low and seeking to raise it to €250,000. The President of the Court of Appeal held that under Rule 220.2 RoP, the appeal required leave from the Court of First Instance, which had not been granted, rendering the appeal inadmissible from the outset and incapable of being withdrawn.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315, held by Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. Following an oral hearing on 30 January 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to have the settlement confirmed. The court confirmed the settlement, issued a cost decision based on the parties' agreement, and ordered that the details of the settlement and cost arrangement be treated as confidential.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed an appeal by Netgear concerning the deadline for filing a Statement of Defense after Huawei extended its infringement action to include a second patent (EP 3678321). The Court held that due process requires the defendant to have the same time to respond to an added patent as if a new action had been filed, and set the defense deadline to April 18, 2024, running from the date of the Local Division's confirmation order (January 18, 2024) rather than from the earlier judge-rapporteur's order.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.President and Fellows of Harvard College and 10x Genomics, Inc.
This appeal concerned a request for provisional measures (a cease-and-desist order) by 10x Genomics and Harvard College against NanoString Technologies for alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 108 782, which relates to compositions and methods for analyte detection. The Court of First Instance (Munich Local Division) had granted the injunction, but on appeal, the Court of Appeal revoked the orders and rejected the Applicants' request, finding that the Applicants had not established the required sufficient degree of certainty regarding validity and infringement. The Applicants were ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the deadline for a defendant's response after a claim extension adding a new patent (EP 3678321) to an already pending infringement action. The Court of Appeal held that due process requires the defendant to have the same time to respond to the newly added patent as if a new action had been filed, and set aside the Court of First Instance's ruling that the response period began on December 11, 2023, instead fixing the deadline at April 18, 2024.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. and NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a corrigendum issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court on 11 March 2024, correcting Headnote 2, paragraph 3 of its earlier order dated 26 February 2024 in proceedings concerning EP 4 108 782. The underlying proceedings concern an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Chamber Munich) of 19 September 2023 in provisional measures proceedings (UPC CFI 2/2023). The corrected headnote sets out principles for the interpretation of European patent claims under Article 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on its interpretation.
Martin Lionel v.BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation
An applicant, Martin Lionel, sought public access under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure to various Registry documents and communications related to a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris seat) rejected the application, holding that Rule 262(1)(b) applies only to written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties, not to Registry communications or orders issued by the Court.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH & Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 646 825. The plaintiff Edwards Lifesciences Corporation initially requested that a scheduled interim hearing be conducted in person rather than by video conference, and that the court provide simultaneous German-to-English interpretation. After the presiding judge indicated both requests would likely be denied, the plaintiff withdrew both requests and agreed to the video conference format and to jointly retain a private interpreter with the defendants under Rule 109.4 of the Rules of Procedure, splitting the costs equally.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The provided document contains no substantive judgment text; it consists solely of an administrative note indicating the document was uploaded for technical (CMS) reasons to close a workflow, accompanied by a digital signature from Margot Elsa Kokke dated December 13, 2024.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell
This case concerns a review of an ex parte order for preserving evidence (saisie) issued by the Paris Local Division. C-Kore Systems Limited, proprietor of European patent EP 2 265 793 relating to subsea testing apparatus, obtained an ex parte saisie order against Novawell, a former customer alleged to have developed a competing product called 'SICOM'. Novawell sought to have the order revoked, but the Court dismissed the review application in its entirety, finding the request admissible, the evidence sufficient, and the measures compliant with both UPC rules and French national law.