European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 81 of 92 · 2,185 total
Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP International SARL, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP Austria GmbH, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP France SAS, HP v.Dolby International AB
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed the treatment of an intervener (Access Advance LLC) under the Rules of Procedure, holding that unless otherwise ordered, an intervener is treated as a party pursuant to R. 315.4 RoP and is therefore entitled to the protections of R. 262A.6 RoP. The ruling clarified that the circle of persons authorized to access confidential information must include at least one natural person beyond the intervener's procedural representatives.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation u. a.
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl against European Patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, relating to prosthetic heart valve systems with sealing mechanisms to prevent perivalvular leakage. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation. The claimant argued that the patent was invalid for several reasons, including that the subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. The patent at issue was filed on 16 July 2012 as a divisional application and claims priority from US applications of 15 July 2011 and 13 July 2012.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action and counterclaims for revocation regarding European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to prosthetic heart valve systems with sealing mechanisms to prevent perivalvular leakage. Meril Italy Srl filed the main revocation action, while Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation against the patent proprietor Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The claimant argued, among other grounds, that the patent's subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Respondent
This is a procedural decision of the Local Division Brussels concerning an Application for Review filed by the defendants against a prior case management order. The defendants, OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV, sought review of Order ORD_37783/2024 of 8 July 2024, which had rejected their objection against the claimant's equivalence arguments while granting an extension for filing a Statement of Rejoinder until 1 August 2024. The underlying dispute relates to European Patent EP 2 331 036 and concerns the permissibility of the claimant supplementing factual context, adding equivalence-based infringement arguments, and adjusting the prayer for relief in their Reply to the Statement of Defence.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding European Patent No. EP 3 646 825, which relates to embodiments of a prosthetic heart valve featuring a sealing mechanism to prevent or minimize perivalvular leakage. The patent was filed on 16 July 2012 as a divisional application and claims priority from two earlier patent applications of 15 July 2011 and 13 July 2012. The claimant sought revocation of the patent on grounds including that the subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation in the proceedings.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, sets out key legal principles on claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step. The panel (Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß, Judge-Rapporteur András Kupecz, and technically qualified judge Casper Struve) addressed issues including the technical meaning of claim terms, the 'same invention' test for priority, the identification of realistic starting points in the prior art, and the criteria for assessing obviousness and inventive contribution.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addresses key legal principles relating to claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step and obviousness. The judgment establishes headnotes on how the skilled person interprets patent claims using the description and drawings, the standard for claiming the 'same invention' for priority purposes, and the framework for evaluating obviousness and inventive contribution.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
This case concerns a counterclaim for revocation of European patent EP 3 666 797 B1 before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The Claimant, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., sought revocation of the patent held by the Defendant, Amgen, Inc., with both parties being competitors in the cholesterol-lowering pharmaceutical market. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addressed key legal principles including claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe v.Amgen, Inc.
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section). The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addresses issues of claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and inventive step assessment. The judgment establishes key legal principles regarding how the skilled person interprets patent claims, evaluates priority claims, and assesses obviousness based on realistic starting points in the prior art.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the Korean plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., for court-provided simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for September 5, 2024, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. The plaintiff, represented by German counsel, had filed the infringement action in German as the procedural language. The court addressed whether the court itself must provide interpretation services or whether the party must arrange and bear the cost of its own interpreter.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerned a patent infringement action brought by KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 221 117. Following an oral hearing on April 16, 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 20% reimbursement of court fees to the plaintiff under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Apple entities (the appellants and defendants in the main infringement proceedings) to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the time limit for filing the respondent's appeal response under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involves Apple's appeal of the Court of First Instance President's order dated June 18, 2024, which rejected Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2263098). The Court of Appeal rejected the acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in acceleration did not outweigh Ona Patents' interest in orderly proceedings.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued a procedural order referring both the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and the plaintiff's auxiliary request for patent amendment to the Central Chamber Paris. The referral was granted because nearly all attacks raised in the counterclaim were already being pursued in an earlier central revocation action filed by Defendant 1, making parallel proceedings before two different panels inefficient. The court rejected the defendants' objections regarding the risk of divergent decisions, language change costs, and the advancement of central proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for information contained in its unredacted reply and attachments, as well as for negotiations between the parties, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The Local Chamber Mannheim had previously issued an interim order on April 30, 2024, provisionally classifying certain information regarding patent license agreements and related negotiations as confidential. The presiding judge Dr. Tochtermann issued the present order addressing the scope of confidentiality protection in connection with Panasonic's application for production of evidence.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerns the referral of a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 4 074 373 to the Central Chamber Paris. The plaintiff MED-EL filed an infringement action against three Advanced Bionics entities, and defendants 2 and 3 counterclaimed for revocation. Because nearly identical revocation attacks were already pending before the Central Chamber Paris (filed earlier by Defendant 1), the Local Chamber exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) of the UPC Agreement to refer the counterclaim to the Central Chamber for consolidated proceedings.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a procedural dispute in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP 3 024 163 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The defendants, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH, requested an extension of the deadline to file their Duplik (reply) to the infringement claim, the reply to the counterclaim for revocation, and the response to the patent amendment request, until September 17, 2024. The court found that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' of its reply, with redacted portions serving as placeholders for later submissions, was impermissible, but granted an exception since this issue was being addressed for the first time.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Panasonic Holdings Corporation for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure regarding information contained in the unredacted version of its reply and attachments, as well as negotiations between the parties, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants (OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.) objected to the scope of the requested confidentiality regime, arguing it should extend to all related proceedings, permit information sharing with external counsel in parallel UK proceedings, and allow additional employees access. The matter was decided by the Presiding and Reporting Judge Dr. Tochtermann of the Local Chamber Mannheim.
OROPE Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order extending the defendant's deadlines for filing its reply to the rejoinder on the FRAND-related statement of defense and its rejoinder on the response to the FRAND counterclaim. The deadlines, originally set to expire on July 17, 2024, were extended to August 14, 2024, following the final decision on the confidentiality protection regime. The court found the extension necessary and sufficient for the defendant to take a final position on the FRAND aspect of the dispute.
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.