European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 67 of 84 · 2,007 total
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Application No. App_7184/2024)
This order concerns a procedural dispute in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3646 825 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance. The claimant, Meril Italy srl, sought to refuse the defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's subsequent application to amend the patent lodged with its rejoinder. The panel granted the claimant's request, ruling that Rule 263(1) RoP did not apply and that the defendant's request constituted a 'subsequent request' to amend the patent under Rule 50(2) and Rule 30(2) RoP, which was not admitted.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited and Others (Procedural Order on Alternative Service)
ICPillar LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP3000239, filed an infringement action against 12 defendants of the ARM group. This procedural order addressed ICPillar's application under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure for an alternative method of service of the Statement of Claim on four UK-based defendants (Arm Limited, Apical Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, and SVF Holdco). The Paris Local Division deemed the Statement of Claim served on 7 February 2024, based on bailiff-confirmed deliveries via FedEx and DHL.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action (ACT_588685/2023) related to European Patent EP3404726 held by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The defendant, Laser Components SAS, requested a change of the language of procedure from French to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding that the claimant's choice of French respected the rights of the French defendant and that no serious reasons of convenience or fairness justified a change of language.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3646 825 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat), the claimant Meril Italy srl requested permission to exchange further written pleadings to respond to new arguments raised by the defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in its rejoinder. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the claimant had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting further pleadings and that any reaction to the defendant's arguments could be made during the oral hearing. The request for leave to appeal was also rejected.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Unified Patent Court decision.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Unified Patent Court decision.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on 16 December 2023, all three NanoString respondents filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on 4 February 2024. Both parties requested suspension of the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests, holding that under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, proceedings need not be suspended under Rule 311.1 of the Rules of Procedure when a party is declared insolvent only after the close of oral hearings and the case is ready for decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal. AIM Sport Development AG appealed a decision of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Helsinki) that dismissed its actions due to the UPC's lack of competence over European patent EP 3 295 663 owing to its opt-out. The Court of Appeal identified that AIM had lodged its appeal within two months of service, but the applicable time period under R.224.1(b) RoP for appeals against orders under Art. 60 and Art. 62 UPCA was 15 days, and invited both parties to comment on the non-compliance and its consequences.
Sanofi v.Amgen, Regeneron
Unified Patent Court decision.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding European Patent EP 2 568 724, deciding to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3)(a) UPCA to combine these proceedings for reasons of efficiency and procedural economy.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) UPCA, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's nascent operational situation.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl
Unified Patent Court decision.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's request for acceleration of appeal proceedings under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed an order of the Local Division Munich that separated the claim based on EP 3678321 from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1. The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening of time limits, finding that granting it would not adequately consider Huawei's interest in adequate preparation time and would violate principles of proportionality, fairness, and equity.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2207270. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, to jointly hear the infringement action together with the counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's early operational stage.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S. & Ors.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2568724 in proceedings between Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and multiple Xiaomi group entities as defendants. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court to order that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, together with a FRAND-related counterclaim under Article 33(3)(a), be heard jointly. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's nascent operational situation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, in which Panasonic Holdings Corporation (plaintiff) brought an infringement action against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (defendants). The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 RoP in conjunction with Art. 33(3) UPCA, to jointly hear the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim rather than bifurcating the proceedings.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's application for acceleration of appeal proceedings and shortening of time limits under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed a decision of the Local Division Munich that allowed Huawei to extend its infringement claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening the time limit for filing the response to the appeal, finding that granting the request would prejudice Huawei's right to adequate preparation time and would conflict with principles of proportionality, fairness, and due process.
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
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 3096315, in which Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued multiple Xiaomi entities for patent infringement. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, to jointly hear the infringement action together with the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license, rather than bifurcating the proceedings.