Hamburg (DE) Local Division
64 cases · page 1 of 3
Showing 1–29BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This procedural order addressed a request for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an infringement action in the UPC. The Court confirmed that because the case was terminated before the conclusion of the written procedure, the Claimant was entitled to 60% of their paid court fees under Rule 370.9 RoP. This decision highlights the practical application of cost recovery rules when litigation is voluntarily withdrawn.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning a damages claim related to aluminum production technology, the court ultimately dismissed the claimant's request for compensation. However, the ruling provided significant commentary on the assessment of lost profits under the UPC framework, particularly when dealing with price reductions and the reasonableness of offers. The case highlights the complex interplay between national law (German) and the Unified Patent Court Agreement regarding damages claims.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision concerns a cost assessment application arising from an appeal regarding service of process in a patent dispute. The court addressed complex procedural issues, specifically concerning the required representation by legal counsel and the limits on reimbursable costs for purely procedural sub-issues. While the underlying infringement case is not decided here, this ruling provides important guidance on how parties must manage their litigation expenses within the UPC framework.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision, while not addressing patent infringement directly, is a significant procedural ruling concerning cost assessment in appellate proceedings. The court clarified the rules governing representation requirements and the limits of reimbursable costs when appeals focus on narrow procedural issues, such as those related to service of process. This case highlights the detailed administrative framework of the UPC regarding litigation expenses.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the production of evidence in an alleged patent infringement case concerning MPEG-4/AAC standards. The Defendant sought access to historical licensing agreements, arguing they were necessary for assessing FRAND compliance and potential exhaustion of rights. Conversely, the Claimant resisted disclosure of its own current license agreement due to confidentiality obligations. The Court partially sided with both parties, rejecting the broad disclosure requests while compelling the submission of a specific, highly confidential contract.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order addressed a dispute over evidence disclosure in an ongoing patent infringement and FRAND assessment case concerning MPEG-4/AAC technology. The Defendant sought access to the Claimant's confidential licensing agreements with third parties to assess potential antitrust issues (FRAND compliance). The UPC Court partially granted the request, rejecting the production of external documents but compelling the Claimant to submit its own bilateral license agreement under stringent confidentiality protocols.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o.
Brita SE successfully obtained an interim injunction from the UPC Local Chamber against Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. regarding the alleged infringement of EP 2 131 940 B1. The patent covers a specific water treatment device featuring a cartridge with a rotatable locking shaft for securing the connection head. The court ordered an immediate cessation of offering and placing on the market of the infringing cartridges across multiple EU member states. This decision highlights the UPC's efficiency in granting urgent provisional measures to protect IP rights.
Dolle A/S v.FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp.z.o.o.
This Lokalkammer decision addressed a patent infringement suit concerning a roof hatch/staircase (Dachbodentreppe). While the claim for infringement was ultimately dismissed, the court delivered crucial legal guidance. The ruling reinforced the strict 'direct and unambiguous derivation' standard for determining if an invention is the same as one in an earlier application under Article 87 EPC. It also set a clear procedural boundary, prohibiting parties from introducing validity arguments (like lack of inventive step) during oral hearings.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This procedural order in UPC_CFI_555/2024 addresses a complex infringement and revocation action brought by Malikie Innovations Ltd. against Nintendo Co., Ltd. The court admitted numerous applications, including changes to the patent claims and new prior art documents (D10-D20). A key focus was balancing strict procedural rules regarding late inventive step attacks with pragmatic judicial management of the case, allowing for contested submissions while reserving final decisions on complex issues for the panel.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This procedural order in UPC_CFI_537/2024 addressed critical issues regarding claim scope and evidence admissibility in an infringement and revocation action. The court allowed extensive amendments to the patent claims, provided they maintained a reasonable structure (two strains of auxiliary requests). Furthermore, it admitted new prior art documents introduced by both sides, ensuring that the case can proceed with a comprehensive review of validity and infringement.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical for the imminent infringement of its patent covering braided occlusion devices. The court's final order emphasized that CE-mark approval is a mandatory prerequisite for legal market entry in the EU. This ruling highlights the critical role of regulatory compliance (specifically MDR) when assessing potential infringement and market readiness within UPC proceedings.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
In this UPC case, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. initiated infringement proceedings against Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL regarding EP 4 074 373. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement to resolve the dispute. The Hamburg Local Division confirmed this settlement, allowing it to be treated as a final, enforceable decision while ensuring that the confidential details of the agreement remained protected in the public register.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving HMD Global Oy and Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. The Court ruled in favor of HMD Global, granting its request to change the court language from German to English (the patent grant language). The ruling underscores the importance of considering the defendant's operational needs and ability to coordinate internally when balancing fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Nederland N.V.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, aligning with the patent's grant language. The Claimant did not object, and the Court granted the request based on fairness considerations, noting that the parties are internationally active and the technical field uses English predominantly. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC in managing procedural logistics while ensuring fair access to justice for all involved.
MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding service of process in linked proceedings. The Claimant sought to serve the main infringement action on the Defendant's representative who had handled provisional measures, arguing that the link between the cases mandated this. However, the Court ruled that representation is not automatically transferable across different types of proceedings, even if they are related by Rule 213.1 RoP. Consequently, service must be conducted through formal international channels (Hague Convention) due to the Defendant's foreign seat.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
In this UPC case involving a SEP dispute over Android technology, the respondent sought an extension of the reply period citing complex technical and FRAND defense requirements. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that the existing procedural deadlines are already designed to accommodate the complexities of international patent litigation. This decision reinforces the principle that parties must manage their timelines effectively within the UPC's structured framework.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited successfully obtained provisional measures against the Dreame group and its affiliates in a UPC case concerning hair styling appliances. The ruling is highly significant as it leverages EU product safety regulations to establish international jurisdiction over non-EU manufacturers, using their Authorized Representative (AR) as an 'anchor defendant.' This decision strengthens the enforcement power of the UPC by making ARs liable for injunctions.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited successfully sought provisional measures against the Dreame group and its affiliates in a UPC action concerning hair styling appliances. The ruling was significant for establishing jurisdiction over international companies operating through EU Authorized Representatives, confirming that these representatives can act as 'anchor defendants' under Brussels I rules. This decision provides clarity on how IP rights holders can enforce their patents against global supply chains anchored by local intermediaries. The case underscores the practical application of cross-border legal principles within the UPC framework, particularly regarding product safety regulations and distribution networks.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This UPC decision addresses the release of a security deposit provided by the applicant in a cost dispute. The Court ruled that when parties reach an inter partes settlement regarding legal costs, the security can be transferred to the beneficiary to finalize the matter. This ruling clarifies the practical application of procedural rules concerning financial guarantees and settlements within the UPC framework.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC cost decision addressed the financial claims following a preliminary measures application concerning the pharmaceutical product Epysqli®. The court meticulously reviewed the claimed costs, distinguishing between reasonable expert fees and disproportionate legal representation expenses. While recognizing the necessity of certain travel and expert costs, the court struck down excessive charges from UK solicitors that did not demonstrate efficiency in the proceedings.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a cost claim filed by Samsung Bioepis against Alexion Pharmaceuticals following the dismissal and rejection of provisional measures proceedings. The court found that while the overall application was admissible, several elements of the claimed costs were unreasonable or unsupported by evidence. Key adjustments included limiting travel accommodation reimbursement based on the actual arrival time at the hearing location.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc.
Nera Innovations Ltd. brought an infringement suit against various Xiaomi entities regarding its patent on wireless power receivers used in smartphones. The defendants counter-sued seeking revocation of the patent. While the court dismissed the revocation counterclaim, it found that the claimant was responsible for bearing the costs associated with the infringement lawsuit. This decision highlights the UPC's detailed scrutiny of procedural matters, such as the scope of auxiliary claims and the definition of prior art.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division granted a three-month stay of proceedings in an infringement action after two defendants were declared bankrupt. The court clarified that while insolvency does not automatically halt UPC proceedings, it allows for a temporary suspension under Rule 311.1 RoP. Crucially, the decision confirmed that the stay must encompass all parties, including non-insolvent natural persons like company directors, based on established case law regarding liability.
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. successfully obtained a provisional injunction against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH regarding the use of its electrolytic medium in electropolishing processes (EP 4 249 647 B1). The Hamburg Local Division upheld the cease and desist order, imposing significant recurring penalty payments for non-compliance. This case highlights the practical application of provisional measures within the UPC framework, emphasizing the balance between protecting patent rights and considering market interests.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning costs determination in UPC case UPC_CFI_58/2024, Lionra Technologies Ltd. successfully petitioned for restoration of its previous status after missing a deadline under Rule 151 VerfO. The court accepted the argument that the oversight was an organizational error within the claimant's legal team, which fell outside the party's control. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural deadlines, especially those related to costs procedures, can be restored if the failure is attributable to circumstances beyond the party's reasonable influence.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted Visibly Inc.'s request for security for costs against Easee B.V. The court found that despite arguments regarding the UPCA's scope and the defendants' status as a start-up, the claimant was entitled to protect itself from non-recovery of legal fees due to the defendants' precarious financial situation. This decision reinforces the procedural right of parties in UPC proceedings to seek security for costs when there is a genuine risk that judgment costs cannot be recovered.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
In this UPC case, Dolby International AB sued Epson France SAS (among others) for alleged infringement of EP 3 605 534B1. The defense raised a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the claimant's withdrawal from the Opt-out regime was invalid. The Local Division of Hamburg dismissed this opposition, finding that the procedural requirements had been met and allowing the case to proceed. This decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for managing opt-outs within the UPC framework.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over security for costs in an infringement action involving solar technology patents. The Defendants sought to compel the Claimant, based in China, to provide adequate financial security due to perceived difficulties in enforcing UPC judgments in China. However, the Panel rejected this request, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the requesting party. While the initial application was dismissed, the Court granted leave to appeal for the Defendants regarding the scope and requirements of security requests.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS, Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Guccio Gucci S.p.A., G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, Gucci Logistica S.p.A.
AGFA NV brought an infringement action against various Gucci entities concerning the patent EP3388490, which covers methods for decorating natural leather using inkjet printing. Simultaneously, a counterclaim for revocation was filed. The Hamburg Local Division ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim. This decision highlights the court's strict approach to procedural fairness, particularly regarding how claims are interpreted and when new evidence can be introduced during validity challenges.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a motion by Xiaomi defendants seeking to exclude arguments made by Nera Innovations Ltd. regarding the patentability of specific dependent claims (Hilfsanträge). The court found that the claimant had sufficiently disclosed the basis for these combined claims in earlier filings and that subsequent elaborations were permissible under procedural rules. This decision reinforces the principle of procedural economy, allowing parties to build upon existing arguments without being strictly limited by initial filing requirements.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.