European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 67 of 67 · 1,592 total
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This UPC CFI decision addressed a procedural hurdle in the infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Dexcom Inc. and its international subsidiary. The court accepted evidence that proper service had been effected on the defendant using an Irish process server, thereby resolving a key jurisdictional issue. This ruling allows the main infringement proceedings to move forward, setting a clear timeline for filing the Statement of Claim.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
In a procedural matter concerning the expedition of an appeal, the UPC Court of Appeal denied the request made by Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The core issue was whether to shorten the time period for the Respondent's Statement of response. The court emphasized principles of proportionality and due process, concluding that granting the expedited timeline would prejudice the Respondent's right to adequate preparation time. This decision highlights the Court's commitment to procedural fairness over merely accommodating a party's urgency.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
In a procedural matter concerning the expedition of an appeal, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected the request made by Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The core issue was whether to shorten the time period for Panasonic Holdings Corporation's Statement of response. The court ruled that due process and proportionality required giving the Respondent adequate time to prepare its defense, even if it meant delaying the proceedings.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected an application by OPPO and OROPE to shorten the time period for the Respondent, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, to file its Statement of response. The court emphasized that while expediency is desired, procedural fairness and proportionality must be maintained. This decision highlights the court's commitment to due process, even when it means delaying a party's preferred timeline.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the court issued a complex order regarding document disclosure stemming from parallel US litigation. The respondent sought to introduce evidence related to non-technical issues (such as competitive practices) into the European proceedings. The court granted the submission of specific documents but imposed stringent confidentiality requirements ('Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only'), balancing the need for evidence with protecting trade secrets.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH; Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.; Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the service of claims when supporting annexes are submitted later than the initial Statement of Claim. The court affirmed that a claim can be validly served even if it refers to future annexes, provided the core statement is complete enough for the defendant to assert their rights. Crucially, the ruling established that failure by the claimant to comply with simultaneous submission rules (Rule 13.2 RoP) automatically entitles the defendant to an extension of procedural deadlines equal to the delay period.
De heer v.OrthoApnea S.L.
In a time-sensitive UPC proceeding, the local division in Brussels granted an urgent request for provisional measures concerning EP 2 331 036. The claimant sought to preserve evidence of infringement by OrthoApnea's NOA product ahead of a major medical symposium. Recognizing the imminent loss of evidence and the urgency, the court allowed the protective measures without hearing the defendant, thereby securing the necessary documentation and products for future litigation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning the unitary patent EP4108782 related to analyte detection methods. The court provided important guidance on the standard of proof required (preponderant likelihood) when assessing validity in provisional measures proceedings. While the main injunction requests were dismissed, the court granted specific relief regarding indirect infringement and imposed significant penalty payments against the defendants.