European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 69 of 84 · 2,007 total
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEl GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
Unified Patent Court decision.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
Unified Patent Court decision.
NJOY Netherlands BV v.VMR Products LLC
Unified Patent Court decision.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finlan Oy, HP Italy S.r.l, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP - Computing and Printi
Unified Patent Court decision.
Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns an application by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. for suspensive effect of their appeal against a costs order of the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the appellants' interest in avoiding further costs from cost decision proceedings did not outweigh the respondent's interest in a quick decision on costs, and that the impugned order was not clearly erroneous.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Germany GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This case concerns a request for discretionary review before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the admissibility of an appeal against an order by a judge rapporteur. The judge rapporteur had refused to refer his earlier decision (that the Applicants' preliminary objection would be dealt with in the main proceedings) to the panel for review under Rule 333.1 RoP. The standing judge allowed the discretionary review request, permitting the applicants to appeal the 11 December 2023 order, and referred the case to the President of the Court of Appeal for assignment to a panel.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore AS [et al.], Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP
Unified Patent Court decision.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
Unified Patent Court decision.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Edrich u.a.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Edrich u.a.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Amagen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Sanofi -Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron pharmaceuticals Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Mathys & Squire v.Astellas, Healios, Riken, Osaka University
Unified Patent Court decision.