European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 77 of 92 · 2,185 total
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., v.Respondent
1 Hamburg – Local Division UPC_CFI_88/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued: 09/09/2024 PARTIES: Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, represented by Herrn Götzl, Sandhofer Straße 116, 68305 Mannheim, Germany, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 1
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 372 863. The plaintiff, Philips IP Ventures B.V., requested postponement of the oral hearing originally scheduled for September 11, 2024, citing the rescheduling of a parallel proceeding's decision date and the strategic importance of another related case. The defendants consented to the postponement, and the presiding judge granted the request, rescheduling the hearing to October 23, 2024.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a review under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in three parallel proceedings relating to European Patents EP 2 568 724, EP 2 207 270, and EP 2 315. The defendants challenged the rapporteur's order that only partially granted their request to extend the deadline for filing a rejoinder to the plaintiff's reply on the non-technical (FRAND) part. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on the review of the time-limit extension request.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
This case concerns a panel review of an order dismissing a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Defendant, Aarke AB, sought security of EUR 400,000, arguing that enforcement of a UPC cost order in Israel would be impossible or unduly burdensome due to the reciprocity requirement under Israeli law. The panel dismissed the application for review, finding that the Claimant (part of the PepsiCo group) was financially capable of complying with a cost order and that no sufficient facts supported a likelihood of unenforceability, while granting leave to appeal.
Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft. v.Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc.
1. Art. 25 UPCA constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws and whose content is to be inter- preted independently by the Court. 2. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer has al- ready set the stage for it to occur. The infringement is only a matter of starting the action
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Central Division, Paris Seat, which had rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing the risk of an injunction in parallel infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, holding that the interests advanced by Meril did not justify shortening the procedural timetable at Edwards' expense.
Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) that rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing potential irreparable harm from a possible injunction in parallel infringement proceedings and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, finding that Meril's interests did not outweigh Edwards' legitimate interest in having the appeals proceed according to the regular timetable.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.1. Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, 2. S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The applicant, Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG, sought provisional measures against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International to prevent the offering, distribution, and storage of an optical fiber for treating venous diseases ('Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber'), alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1. The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf rejected the application for interim measures without an oral hearing, finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the substantive necessity of provisional measures. The court held that the applicant had not adequately shown why its legal protection诉求 could not be sufficiently addressed through main proceedings.
Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This is an appeal order concerning the referral of an infringement action from the Local Chamber Mannheim to the Central Division Paris. Advanced Bionics sought to have the infringement case transferred to the Central Division to be heard together with a nullity action they had filed against the same patent (EP 4074373). The Court of Appeal held that a connection for related cases under Rule 340 of the Rules of Procedure cannot result in a case being referred to another chamber outside the possibilities provided by Article 33 UPCA, and that Article 33 UPCA does not permit the referral of an infringement action from a local chamber to the central chamber without the parties' consent.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l v.Insulet Corporation
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 04/09/2024 Order no. ORD_45723/2024 APPLICANT 1) A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Applicant) - Via Dei Sette Santi 3 - 50131 - Florence – IT Represented
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This appeal concerned the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2479680, owned by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and exclusively licensed to Sling TV L.L.C. The appellants, AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYlo Freesites Ltd, challenged an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim dated April 5, 2024. The Court of Appeal clarified that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) and Article 71b(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and alleged damage may occur there, including through internet-based activities accessible in that territory.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L v.Respondent
This order concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants had submitted three third-party license agreements with their rejoinder and sought access restrictions exceeding the previously established confidentiality regime. The Local Chamber Mannheim, presided by Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, issued an order with access restrictions corresponding to the existing confidentiality regime, falling short of the defendants' newly requested restrictions for two of the license agreements.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH regarding European Patent No. 3 024 163. The plaintiff sought to extend the lawsuit to include OTECH Germany GmbH as an additional defendant, arguing that OTECH had taken over the smartphone sales activities previously handled by OROPE and had already been found liable for patent infringement by the Mannheim Regional Court in June 2023. The defendants opposed the extension as inadmissible and untimely, contending the plaintiff could and should have sued OTECH directly or filed the extension request much earlier.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
ORDER Of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued on 2/09/2024 APPLICANT: (in the main proceedings, respondent in the procedural application) Valeo Electrification, 14 avenue des Béguines, 95800 Cergy, France, represented by the President Thierry Kalanquin, wit
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE before the Local Chamber Munich. The dispute involves European Patent No. 1 838 002 B1, titled 'Programmable Hybrid Transmitter,' which is in force only in Germany. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants infringe claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12 of the patent, which relate to a transmitter architecture with a baseband processing module, an up-conversion module, and a power amplifier circuit operating in first and second modes. The decision was rendered on August 30, 2024, following an oral hearing held on June 25, 2024.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG v.Ona Patents SL
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns a request for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The plaintiff Ona Patents SL brought the action against multiple Apple entities. The court found the request admissible and granted it to the extent ordered, holding that the existence of a negative fact does not per se exclude the need for confidentiality protection, and that even statements indicating that certain products do not support certain functionalities may qualify as confidential.
UPC Decision UPC-001299 v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against three Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989 B1. The patent relates to technology implemented in devices using the Wi-Fi 6 standard, which the defendants manufacture and distribute. The order was issued by the presiding judge acting as rapporteur under Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure, with the proceedings conducted in German.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on August 27, 2024, concerning a request for a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out five guiding legal principles addressing direct versus indirect patent infringement liability under the 'extended workbench' doctrine, the scope of injunctive relief for indirect infringement, limitations on validity arguments in preliminary proceedings, and temporal urgency requirements. The court found that the contested program library combined with videos and documentation did not meet the standard for direct infringement liability, as alternative programming possibilities meant completion of the patented device could not be established with certainty.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/08/2024 concernant une demande d’audition de témoin à l’audience orale (R.176 et 177 RdP) ABSTRACT : 1. Les questions orales posées au témoin, auteur
Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns an application for provisional measures brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited in relation to European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centers on alleged infringement through the distribution of a patent-infringing composition outside the Contracting States and advertising of a composition under the same name within the Contracting States, creating a risk of first infringement. The Local Division Munich addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the burden of pleading and proof for product claims directed to compositions, the sufficiency of cease-and-desist declarations to eliminate risk of first infringement, the limitation of validity arguments to three in summary proceedings, and the applicable safe harbour period for temporal urgency.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Respondent
This case concerns a request by Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, UEFA, and Kinexon GmbH for security for costs of the appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. before the Court of Appeal. Ballinno had previously been ordered by the Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) to provide €56,000 in security for costs and had its application for provisional measures dismissed. The appeal concerns both the security order and the main order dismissing the provisional measures application. The matter relates to European Patent EP 1 944 067.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH a.o.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 1 612 910 B1, titled 'Monitoring circuit for on-board power supply and power supply control.' The plaintiff, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, alleged that the defendants, Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, infringed the patent through the production and sale of Tesla vehicles manufactured at the Grünheide facility near Berlin. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Hamburg issued its decision on August 26, 2024, addressing procedural matters regarding CMS workflow usage and the scope of partial revocation under the applicable procedural rules.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holdings ApS
Peter Juul Agergaa rd Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Dato: 2024.08.26 13:35:50 +02'00' Peter Juul Agergaa rd Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Dato: 2024.08.26 13:35:50 +02'00' Peter Juul Agergaa rd Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Dato: 2024.08.26 13
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP3065184 (relating to trench processes and structures for back side contact solar cells) applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance was required to assess the admissibility of the application and the merits of the language change request. The order addressed both procedural admissibility of the English-language submission and the substantive balancing of interests between the parties regarding the language of proceedings.