European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 71 of 84 · 2,007 total
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
Unified Patent Court decision.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limitet v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE/Tesla Germany GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
Unified Patent Court decision.
myStromer AG v.Revolt Zycling AG, George Merachtsakis
Unified Patent Court decision.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
Unified Patent Court decision.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
Unified Patent Court decision.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
Unified Patent Court decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
Unified Patent Court decision.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Third Party
Unified Patent Court decision.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. , President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
10xGenomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This case before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerned a patent infringement action regarding EP4108782. The defendant Vizgen sought review under Rule 333.1 of an order by the presiding judge that had partially rejected its requests for production of documents disclosed in parallel US proceedings. The full panel granted most of the production requests, ordering the plaintiffs to disclose specific emails, an FAQ document, and a deposition transcript, while treating them as confidential information accessible only to legal counsel.
AIM Sport Vision AG v.Supponor Oy, Limited, SASU, España SL, Italia SRL
Unified Patent Court decision.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
myStromer AG v.Revolt Zycling AG
Unified Patent Court decision.
OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v.AUTOSTORE AS
Unified Patent Court decision.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the date of service of a Statement of claim and the extension of procedural deadlines. The appellants (Sanofi entities and Regeneron) challenged a procedural order of the Munich Local Division that had rejected their request to recalculate the deadlines for lodging a Preliminary objection and Statement of defense based on the later availability of Annexes. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that while a Statement of claim without Annexes can be validly served under Rule 271 RoP, non-compliance with Rule 13.2 RoP (requiring simultaneous upload of Annexes) constitutes a reasoned request for extension of the terms under Rules 19.1 and 23 RoP.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, RIKEN, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
Unified Patent Court decision.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, RIKEN
Unified Patent Court decision.
NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10xGenomics, Inc. / President and Fellows of Harvard College
Unified Patent Court decision.