European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 71 of 92 · 2,185 total
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Claimant 10x Genomics requested that the Defendant Curio Bioscience provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Defendant argued the application was inadmissible, contending that Art. 69(4) UPCA only permits defendants to request security from claimants. The Court held the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Defendant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within four weeks, and granted leave to appeal.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal order concerning an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 2 043 492, which covers a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a specific handle arrangement. Dyson Technology Limited, as the patent proprietor, sought interim measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal reviewed the first instance decision and, after balancing the probabilities, concluded that it was not more likely than not that the patent was being infringed. The appeal order thus turned on the assessment of the likelihood of patent infringement in the context of interim relief.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns infringement and nullity proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation). The plaintiffs (Heraeus entities) allege patent infringement by Vibrantz GmbH in Germany, Italy, and France, while the defendant asserts prior use rights and has filed a nullity counterclaim. The order addresses multiple procedural applications, including a review of a prior refusal to allow amendment for indirect infringement of a process claim, and applications to extend both the main claim and counterclaim to cover Romania following its accession to the Unified Patent Court agreement on September 1, 2024.
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 594 009 B1 in a patent infringement action. The Court disregarded the Defendants' written submissions filed on 28 November 2024 because the Defendants failed to make a reasoned request for further written submissions as required under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands BV v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC concerning European patent EP 2 875 740 B1, which relates to electronic vapour products. NJOY challenged the patent's validity on the ground of lack of inventive step, relying on prior art documents including 'Cross', 'Pan', and 'DiFonzo', as well as common general knowledge. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the invention was not obvious in view of the cited prior art combinations, and maintained the patent as granted, ordering NJOY to bear the costs.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing for its representatives who lacked sufficient English skills. The court granted the request for interpretation but ruled that the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, allowing FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
*** v.Amycel LLC
This appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned a challenge to an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague on 31 July 2024 in a dispute involving EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had paid a reduced court fee of €6,600 (60% of the regular €11,000 fee) claiming micro-enterprise status, but the Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence to confirm the Appellant qualified as a small enterprise. After the Appellant failed to pay the additional fees ordered within the set time limit, the Respondent requested a decision by default against the Appellant.
Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
This Procedural Order concerns the protection of confidential information in an infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 3 320 604 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the Claimant's request to add Patent Attorney Florian Saadi to its team of authorised persons, finding the wish to keep teams parallel between the main and parallel PI proceedings reasonable, but declined to extend the group further. The Court classified information contained in the Defendants' Statement of defence and associated exhibits as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP, restricting access to specifically named representatives, natural reliable persons, and additional attorneys.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC seeking revocation of European patent EP 3 456 214, which relates to vaporizers (electronic cigarettes). The patent had previously been opposed before the European Patent Office, where the Opposition Division confirmed its maintenance with amendments, leading to republication on 22 November 2023. The decision addresses procedural issues concerning the front-loaded procedural system, the requirements for specifying grounds of invalidity and prior art in revocation actions, and the limited circumstances under which new facts and evidence may be introduced in subsequent written pleadings.
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Respondent
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 27/11/2024 Order no. ORD_63173/2024 APPLICANT (defendant in the main proceeding) Himson Engineering Private Limited Represented by Fabrizio Jacobacci
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court considered Total Semiconductor's request for discretionary review of an order by the Mannheim Local Division's judge-rapporteur requiring Total Semiconductor to provide €600,000 in security for costs. The central issue was whether a judge-rapporteur has the competence to issue an order on security for costs and deny leave to appeal, or whether such an order must be adopted by a panel. The Court of Appeal allowed leave to appeal on this procedural question but expressly excluded the substantive matter of security for costs from the scope of review.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Respondent
The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to reduce the amount of damages sought in its infringement action against Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173 from the originally claimed sum to 2 million euros. Microsoft opposed the amendment, arguing it was a litigation tactic aimed at reducing the security for costs and did not fall within the scope of Rule 263. The Court held that the reduction of damages sought constitutes a limitation of the claim under Rule 263(3), and since it was filed with due explanation and unconditionally, leave to amend must be granted.
Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad International GmbH, Myriad Genetics B.V., Eurobio Scientific, Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns a request by the defendants for the claimant to provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 346 403. The defendants argued that the claimant, a Korean IP monetization company incorporated in 2024 with limited assets and a low credit rating, posed a risk that any cost order would be unrecoverable. The claimant did not contest the request and agreed to provide security of EUR 112,000, and the court ordered the security to be provided by deposit or bank guarantee by 15 January 2025.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.Novawell
This procedural order was issued by the Paris Local Division following an interim conference held on 22 November 2024 in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent No. EP2265793 owned by C-Kore Systems Limited against French defendant Novawell. Novawell requested the rejection of exhibit 57 from C-Kore's unredacted statement, the hearing of the court's expert Mr. Sartorius and bailiff Me Labadie as witnesses, and simultaneous interpretation with French-language pleadings at the oral hearing, all of which C-Kore contested. The court addressed the scope of professional secrecy applicable to the affidavit submitted by Mr. Wlodarczyk, the representative present during the saisie (evidence preservation) operations, concluding that the information provided related to how the seizure measures were carried out and therefore fell outside the scope of professional secrecy under both UPC and French national rules.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_395/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 25/11/2024 APPLICANT 1) DexCom, Inc. 6340 Sequence Drive 92121 - San Diego, CA - US Represented by Anne-Charlotte Le Bihan RESPONDENTS 1) Abbott Logistics B.V. Postbus 365
Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on November 25, 2024, in case UPC_CFI_443/2024 concerning a request for preliminary measures brought by Häfele SE & Co KG against an unnamed defendant. The order set out seven guiding principles addressing procedural independence from ownership disputes, claim interpretation regarding subclaims, the inadmissibility of prosecution files as interpretation material, and the balance-of-interests analysis required for preliminary injunctions. The full operative provisions of the ruling are not visible in the available text excerpt.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's application under Rule 333 RoP to review and set aside a prior order by the Judge-Rapporteur that had rejected FUJIFILM's request to submit a further written pleading in response to new prior use allegations raised by the Kodak defendants in their Rejoinder. The Panel found the request for review admissible but dismissed it on the merits, holding that the Judge-Rapporteur had correctly balanced the risk of delay against the Claimant's interest in further written submissions.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order was issued by the Local Division in Milan in a patent infringement action brought by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent No. EP2145848. The defendant Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation. The judge-rapporteur outlined the agenda for the upcoming interim conference, addressing settlement prospects, translation errors in the Italian patent validation, the scope of Himson's revocation counterclaim, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, the infringement claim and related evidence, ancillary measures, litigation costs, and the organization of the Oral Hearing.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on November 22, 2024, rejecting the defendants' application for a stay of proceedings and cancellation of the scheduled pronouncement date, as well as their alternative application for postponement of the pronouncement to at least December 6, 2024. The court found that the requirements for a stay under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure were not met, particularly because there was no joint application from both parties, as the plaintiff had expressly opposed the stay. The case concerns European Patent EP 2 568 724.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. v.Plant-e Knowledge B.V.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants in microbial fuel cells, to be valid and infringed by equivalence by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court applied a four-question test for assessing infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringement, recall infringing products, provide information, publish a corrective notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for non-compliance.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation filed an application for provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. for alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327, relating to its Omnipod 5 insulin patch pump technology. Insulet asserted that Menarini's distribution of the EOPatch (marketed as GlucoMen Day Pump) infringed its patent rights. The Milan Local Division addressed key procedural questions regarding the admissibility of auxiliary requests to amend the patent in provisional measures proceedings, holding that such amendments are inadmissible under Rule 30.2 RoP and must be raised in main proceedings.
Plant-e B.V., Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) ruled that European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants, is valid and infringed by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court found infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringing activities, provide information, publish a recall notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for any further infringement.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
In the proceedings for provisional measures, the Applicant is required to provide cumulatively reasonable evidence to satisfy the Court with sufficient degree of certainty that: (i) the Applicant is entitled to initiate proceedings under Art. 47 UPCA; (ii) the patent is valid; (iii) its rights are being infringed or that such infringement is imminent (Rule 211.2 RoP). The auxiliary request to amend the patent pursuant to Rule 30.2 RoP is not admissible in the proceedings for provisional mea