European UPC IP Litigation
1,878 annotated decisions
Page 69 of 79 · 1,878 total
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Respondent
This case concerns an infringement action before the Local Division Brussels regarding European Patent EP 2 331 036. The Defendants filed a Generic Procedural Application on June 24, 2024, objecting to the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence. The dispute centers on whether the Claimant may supplement the factual framework, add an equivalence-based infringement argument, and adjust the prayer for relief in his Reply. The Judge-Rapporteur issued a definitive procedural order on July 8, 2024, following a provisional order of June 25, 2024 that invited further submissions from both parties.
Arm Germany GmbH, Arm lreland Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited, ARM Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, SVF Holdco, Simulity Labs Limited v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by ARM under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. ARM sought a declaration that ICPillar's Statement of grounds of appeal had not been served, or alternatively, an extension of the deadline for lodging its Statement of response. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request but granted the alternative request, ordering that the time period for ARM's Statement of response would end 15 days after the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) was made available to ARM's representative.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns an application by Panasonic Holdings Corporation for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 024 163. Panasonic sought to classify certain information related to ongoing FRAND license negotiations with the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) as strictly confidential, including grey-highlighted submissions and exhibits labeled 'Anlagen KAP FRAND'. The defendants requested that access to such confidential information be restricted to specific named persons. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann of the Local Chamber Munich.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal filed by 10x Genomics against an order of the Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) in proceedings involving EP 2 697 391, where 10x's application for provisional measures against Curio Bioscience was partly dismissed. After Curio filed its response raising questions of admissibility and necessity of the appeal but did not lodge a cross-appeal, 10x requested withdrawal of its appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal with Curio's consent and agreed with both parties that the determination of cost reimbursement should be deferred until a final decision in the main proceedings on the merits before the Court of First Instance.
Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 024 163 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies for alleged patent infringement. The proceedings were filed before the Local Chamber Munich, with the statement of claim received on 31 July 2023 and served on the various defendants between 8 September and 19 September 2023. The order issued on 4 July 2024 by the presiding judge and rapporteur Matthias Zigann addresses an application for confidentiality/protection of trade secrets (Geheimnisschutz) within the patent infringement proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued multiple Xiaomi entities and other defendants for patent infringement. The order provides technical guidance and questions to the parties to structure further proceedings, particularly addressing the defendants' arguments regarding non-infringement of specific patent features related to LTE standard implementations involving PUCCH and SRS transmissions.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott NV / SA, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott France, Abbott B.V., Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Laboratories
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities concerning European Patent EP3435866, which relates to an analyte monitoring system (continuous glucose monitoring technology). The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Paris Local Division addressed jurisdictional questions regarding the scope of dispute, the applicability of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the validity of the patent, finding novelty and no added subject-matter, but concluding that the claimed invention lacked inventive step.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1, with Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG as plaintiff and Bette GmbH & Co. KG as defendant. The dispute involved issues of prior use rights, indirect patent infringement, remedies including recall and removal from distribution channels, disclosure of accounting books, and information requests. The court issued guiding principles on the territorial scope of prior use defenses, the procedural stage at which disclosure of books may be ordered, the scope of information rights during infringement proceedings, the distinction between recall and final removal from distribution channels, and the timing requirements for retroactive deadline extension requests.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned an application for provisional measures by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 393 417 B1, directed against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The parties reached a settlement during the oral hearing, which the court confirmed pursuant to Rule 365.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The court also ordered a 20% refund of court fees to the Applicant and set the value of the application at 4,000,000 EUR.
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This order concerns a dispute over access restrictions under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 479 680. Defendants AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYLO Freesites Ltd sought to restrict the plaintiffs' (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) access to confidential information contained in their reply to the complaint dated 13 May 2024 and the attached annex BPV 5. The defendants argued that access should be limited to a maximum of three reliable natural persons on the plaintiffs' side, excluding their legal representatives, and that the three in-house counsel named by the plaintiffs were unsuitable due to the risk of misuse of confidential information for the plaintiffs' patent monetization program.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH against European Patent EP 2 044 709 B1 owned by Mala Technologies Ltd. The dispute centered on a preliminary objection raised by Nokia, which sought to reject Mala Technologies' Application to amend the patent as inadmissible, arguing that the Defendant failed to initiate the correct workflow in the Case Management System in a timely manner. The Court denied Nokia's request, holding that the Application to amend was filed within the two-month time limit under Rule 49(1),(2) RoP and that the Rules of Procedure do not unambiguously require a separate workflow for such applications.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, filed an application seeking rejection of the statement of claim as manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued that Suinno's representative could not be considered an independent counsellor under the Code of Conduct because he was also the named inventor, original applicant, and Managing Director of the patent's assignees. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the obligation to act as an independent counsellor can only be invoked by the represented party itself, not by the opposing party, and that performing administrative tasks does not per se render a representative non-independent.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, relating to LTE mobile communication technology. The court, through presiding judge and rapporteur Dr. Tochtermann, provided directions to the parties regarding claim interpretation requirements under Rule 13(1)(n) RoP, the need for the patent proprietor to anchor revocation counterclaim responses in specific claim features, the strict preclusion regime of Rule 30.2 RoP for later patent amendment requests, and the legal interest requirement for a FRAND license rate determination counterclaim seeking declaratory relief.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231, requested an extension of the deadline to file its rejoinder to the reply to the defence to revocation until 29 July 2024. The applicant argued that the claimants had introduced new prior art documents not previously part of the proceedings, and that a parallel counterclaim for revocation had been filed before the Hamburg local division, requiring additional time to prepare a proper response. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur considered the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity in exercising discretionary powers to modify procedural deadlines.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 490 258 B1, addressing time extension and trade secret protection issues. The plaintiff Dolby International AB, supported by intervener Access Advance LLC, sought an extension of its deadline to respond to the defendants' (multiple HP entities) FRAND objection. The defendants had filed a confidentiality application under R. 262A RoP restricting access to certain parts of their submissions, which initially prevented Dolby from consulting with Access Advance pool employees. The court granted a full extension of the response deadline rather than a partial one limited only to the FRAND-related portions.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This order concerns an application by the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, to keep certain evidence ('Agreement A & B') submitted in the main infringement proceedings against Microsoft Corporation confidential from the defendant and the public, on the grounds that they contain business secrets of licensees. Microsoft objected to the admissibility of the application, arguing that the plaintiff's representative lacked independence under the Code of Conduct because he was also the named inventor, original applicant, and Managing Director of the patent's assignees. The presiding judge rejected Microsoft's objection, holding that independence must be assessed relative to potential harm to the represented party's interests rather than in an absolute sense.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen N.V. a.o.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, against multiple Amgen entities. The parties are competitors in pharmaceutical research, development, manufacture, and supply. The patent in suit is a divisional application ultimately derived from international patent application WO 2007/106585, with the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO having decided on 21 September 2023 that its subject-matter was patentable. The court addressed the degree of certainty required regarding the validity of the patent in suit when deciding on provisional measures, including the likelihood that the EPO opposition division would revoke the patent.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. before the Local Division Hamburg in relation to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, which covers the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) patients with a complement component 5 (C5) inhibitor. The patent, a divisional application, was granted with unitary effect on 1 May 2024 following a Technical Board of Appeal decision upholding its patentability. The defendant had filed an opposition at the EPO shortly after grant. The court addressed the standard for assessing validity in the context of provisional measures, holding that such decisions must consider not only the court's own view of validity but also the likelihood that the EPO opposition division will revoke the patent.
Dolby International AB v.HP PPS Sverige AB, HP International SARL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Deutschland GmbH, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Italy S.r.l., HP Austria GmbH, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Finland Oy, Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP Inc
This procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerns the admissibility of intervention (Streithilfe) by Access Advance LLC in support of plaintiff Dolby International AB against multiple HP entities in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed whether Access Advance, as the administrator of a patent pool into which the patent in suit was contributed, has the requisite legal interest to intervene. The court held that a direct and present interest exists where the intervener manages FRAND obligations and licensing of the portfolio including the patent in suit, and the defendant challenges the adequacy of the intervener's license offers.
Spyra Szymon Spyra v.Respondent
The Defendant in main proceedings, Szymon Spyra, a Polish national and natural person whose professional activity relates to mushroom production, requested court-provided simultaneous interpretation between English and Polish for an upcoming oral hearing in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning EP1993350. Amycel LLC, the Applicant in the main action and patent proprietor, opposed the request, arguing that interpretation costs would become costs of the proceedings and that the Defendant could instead engage an interpreter at his own expense. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request under R. 109.1 RoP for court-provided interpretation but granted the request under R. 109.4 RoP, allowing the Defendant to arrange interpretation at his own expense in consultation with the Registry.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the extension of deadlines for the reply to the infringement action and the response to the counterclaim for revocation in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court established that while R. 9.3(a) RoP empowers the court to extend deadlines, such extensions should be granted cautiously and only in justified exceptional cases. The court held that restricted access to unredacted submissions due to R. 262A RoP confidentiality requests constitutes such an exceptional case, requiring that the party and its representatives have sufficient time to develop a unified strategy addressing both infringement and validity issues.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal by Mala Technologies Ltd. against a decision of the Court of First Instance that rejected Mala's preliminary objection in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 044 709 B1. Mala requested a stay of the first instance revocation proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal declared the stay request inadmissible because Mala's written statement did not constitute a 'reasoned request' under Rule 21.2 RoP, and further rejected the request on its merits, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This order concerns an application by Curio Bioscience Inc. under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that a non-appealed R.262A RoP order by the Court of First Instance restricting access to certain information continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that no new protective order is necessary when the same already-protected information is contained in documents lodged in the appeal. The Court accordingly found Curio's request for a new protective order to be superfluous.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff Tridonic GmbH & Co KG brought an infringement action against CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together under Article 33(3)(a) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure.