95 cases · page 3 of 4
Showing 61–89Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the defendants for an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendants argued that because the claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., is domiciled in China, enforcement of any cost decision against it would be highly difficult or nearly impossible. The claimant opposed the motion, contending that basing a security order solely on the nationality or domicile of a party would constitute a priori discrimination not supported by any source of law, and that judgments from numerous countries including Germany have been recognized and enforced in China under Article 267 of the PRC Law of Civil Procedure.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg addressed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP concerning international jurisdiction. The claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 792 100, sought an injunction against Xiaomi entities and MediaTek Inc. for alleged infringement relating to Xiaomi smartphones equipped with MediaTek Dimensity processors. The court examined the interplay between Art. 31 UPCA and the Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly Art. 71b(2) and Art. 7(2), to determine whether the UPC has international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled outside the EU for patent infringements committed in UPC Member States.
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought a preliminary injunction against Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg, alleging that Speed Care's SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing infringed European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1, which protects clay-based hemostatic agents and devices. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by claim 1 of the patent in suit, and therefore could not establish infringement.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems GmbH
Lionra Technologies Ltd., an Irish patent licensing company, sued Cisco Systems GmbH and its US parent Cisco Systems, Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 201 740 B1, which protects fast packet switching in wireless networks. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, which the plaintiff defended in auxiliary form with limitations. The case concerns Cisco's Catalyst 9000 series network switches and addresses the interpretation of patent claims regarding latency reduction in processing data packets and headers in wireless network transmissions.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEl GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the court over a standalone action for the quantification of damages following a national court judgment establishing patent infringement and liability for damages. The appellant, Fives ECL, sought to quantify damages of EUR 6.5 million against REEL GmbH based on a prior judgment of the Landgericht Düsseldorf finding REEL liable for infringing EP 1 740 740. The Court of Appeal overturned the Local Division Hamburg's decision and held that the court has jurisdiction over such standalone damages quantification actions, including for infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the patent was still in force at that time.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of a cost determination application filed by the defendants (Tesla entities) following a patent infringement and revocation dispute with Avago Technologies. The Local Chamber Hamburg held that the court of first instance retains jurisdiction over the withdrawal of a cost determination application still pending before it, even when the main proceedings (infringement claim and counterclaims) have been appealed. The reporting judge further held that, as a substantive decision under Rule 156.2 RoP rather than a case management measure under Rules 331 ff RoP, the decision to permit the withdrawal falls within the reporting judge's sole and exclusive competence.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants to reject at an early stage the plaintiff's application for leave to amend its claims under Rule 263 RoP, which was based on a conditional application to amend the patent-in-suit (EP2642632) under Rule 30 RoP filed in response to the defendants' counterclaim for revocation. The defendants argued that procedural economy required an early decision on the admissibility of the underlying patent amendment request. The court declined to make a preliminary decision on the substantive admissibility of the claim amendment, holding that such decisions of this magnitude should generally be left to the main proceedings and the oral hearing.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_22/2023) involving European Patent EP4108782, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, against Vizgen, Inc. The dispute centers on Plaintiff Harvard's third request to amend the patent, filed on October 25, 2024, which was rejected by the Rapporteur's order of November 8, 2024. The Local Chamber Hamburg reviewed the order under Rule 333.1 RoP and confirmed the rejection, holding that approximately three months between the alleged reason for the amendment and the filing of the request was too long under Rule 30.2 RoP.
Yves Prevoo, Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V. v.Visibly Inc.
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 918 974 concerning a method and system for determining corrective lens prescriptions, brought an infringement action against Easee B.V., its managing director Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. concerning an online vision test offered via a software application. The defendants raised a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP challenging the court's jurisdiction over the personal liability claim against the individual director. The Hamburg Local Chamber held that an alleged patent infringement constitutes a tort within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, and that the UPC therefore has jurisdiction over director liability claims under Article 32 UPCA.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 3 764 271. The plaintiff Hand Held Products, Inc. filed suit on November 6, 2024, alleging infringement by the defendant Scandit AG, which is based in Switzerland. The order resolves a discrepancy between the actual date of service (November 20, 2024) and the date automatically recorded in the Case Management System (November 23, 2024), which was based on an inapplicable service fiction under Rule 271.6 of the Rules of Procedure.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Intel Corporation, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. v.Daedalus Prime LLC
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_169/2024 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/11/2024 APPLICANT 1) Daedalus Prime LLC (Claimant) - 75 South Riverside, unit B/C, Croton- on-Hudson - 10520 - New York - US Represented by Dr. Marc Gru
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Respondent
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_555/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 18/11/2024 APPLICANT Malikie Innovations Ltd. (Claimant) - The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street Lower Dun Laoghaire - A96 VR66 - Dublin - IE Represe
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg on 1 November 2024 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP4108782 held by Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen filed requests under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order compelling the plaintiffs to produce specific documents and deposition transcripts from the discovery process of a parallel US proceeding. The requested materials included fourteen documents from Harvard's discovery production, twenty-one documents from 10x Genomics' discovery production, and transcripts of depositions of various personnel from Harvard, 10x Genomics, and Bio-Techne.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order concerning a patent infringement action related to European Patent EP4108782 owned by Harvard College. The plaintiffs (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the content of exhibit BP 34, consisting of a license agreement and related agreements containing highly sensitive business information, be treated as strictly confidential and accessible only to the defendant's legal representatives under an 'Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only' regime. The plaintiffs argued that the information constitutes trade secrets under Article 58 and Article 24(1)(a) of the relevant agreement and EU Directive 2016/943, and noted that the same documents were subject to equivalent restrictions in parallel US proceedings before the District of Delaware.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College, v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is an order from the Local Division Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4108782 held by President and Fellows of Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen, Inc. filed a request under Rule 333.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking review by the full panel of the reporting judge's order of August 15, 2024, which had rejected Vizgen's requests for production of documents. The disputed documents relate to non-technical objections, specifically allegations of abuse of rights (Rechtsmissbrauch), and were originally produced in US parallel proceedings.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent
This case concerns a panel review of a confidentiality order in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to extend access to confidential information to two US-based attorneys and to future confidential submissions, arguing that excluding them violated its fundamental judicial rights. The Panel rejected the application to dismiss the procedural orders, upheld the restriction on access by the US attorneys, and granted the Defendants' request to replace the redacted version of the Statement of Defence, while granting leave to appeal.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Respondent
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from prior proceedings in which Ballinno B.V. had sought provisional measures against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH concerning European Patent EP1944067. The Claimant did not comment on the request, while the Defendants did not object provided that sensitive technical data constituting trade secrets was redacted. The Court addressed the application for public access to the court documents, balancing transparency with the protection of confidential information.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 197 316 B1 concerning an oral cleaning system with motivational feedback for electric toothbrush users, filed an application for provisional measures against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese company selling 'Oclean' brand electric toothbrushes. The dispute concerned the alleged infringement by Philips of the 'X Ultra S' and 'X Pro Digital' toothbrush models being exhibited at IFA 2024 in Berlin. The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on September 9, 2024, addressing the application for interim injunctive relief.
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
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.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order issued by the Local Chamber in Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP4108782, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen, Inc. filed requests under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking the production of various documents from the plaintiffs, including a 2019 license agreement between Harvard and ReadCoor, several emails disclosed in parallel US discovery proceedings, and documents referenced in a US hearing before Judge Kennelly. The order addresses the procedural framework for these document production requests in connection with the parallel US litigation.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS
Procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by AGFA NV against nine Gucci group entities concerning European Patent EP3388490. The defendants jointly sought to protect as trade secrets certain information contained in their Statement of Defence and Rejoinder relating to the Gucci group's internal organization, supply chain, and sales data. The Hamburg Local Division granted the application, classifying the identified information as confidential under R. 262A RoP and restricting its use outside the present proceedings.
Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_169/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 25/07/2024 APPLICANT/S 3) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. (Defendant) - Prinses Beatrixlaan 582 - 2595BM - The Hague (Den Haag) - DE Represented by
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Respondent
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH brought an infringement action against Tandem Diabetes Care Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., and VitalAire GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg based on European Patent EP 2196231. The defendants (Tandem Diabetes) filed an application under Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that when balancing the interests of both parties—who are international companies operating worldwide—the position of the defendant is the decisive factor when the outcome of the balancing is equal.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen N.V. a.o.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, against multiple Amgen entities. The parties are competitors in pharmaceutical research, development, manufacture, and supply. The patent in suit is a divisional application ultimately derived from international patent application WO 2007/106585, with the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO having decided on 21 September 2023 that its subject-matter was patentable. The court addressed the degree of certainty required regarding the validity of the patent in suit when deciding on provisional measures, including the likelihood that the EPO opposition division would revoke the patent.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. before the Local Division Hamburg in relation to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, which covers the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) patients with a complement component 5 (C5) inhibitor. The patent, a divisional application, was granted with unitary effect on 1 May 2024 following a Technical Board of Appeal decision upholding its patentability. The defendant had filed an opposition at the EPO shortly after grant. The court addressed the standard for assessing validity in the context of provisional measures, holding that such decisions must consider not only the court's own view of validity but also the likelihood that the EPO opposition division will revoke the patent.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of corporate documents. The Defendants sought to compel the Plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited) to disclose four Board of Directors resolutions from entities within the Avago corporate group relating to the authorization of the patent assignment and the granting of powers of attorney. The Defendants raised doubts about the validity of the powers of attorney (Anlagen K29 and K30) and whether the underlying corporate authorizations had been properly granted.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute between Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (plaintiff) and Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE (defendants). The defendants filed a further request under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to produce internal corporate Board of Directors resolutions relating to the authorization of powers of attorney and the transfer of the patent-in-suit. The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing the defendants were improperly shifting focus from the admissibility of self-dealing transactions to internal corporate decision-making. The text of the order is incomplete and does not contain the final ruling.
Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1 relating to a method and system for detecting offside situations, sought a preliminary injunction against UEFA and Kinexon entities in connection with the 'Connected Ball Technology' used at the UEFA European Football Championship 2024. The court denied the application, finding that the claimant had waited almost three months after learning of the alleged infringement without taking significant steps to investigate or obtain supporting documents, thereby failing to demonstrate the urgency required for a preliminary injunction.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Respondent
This case concerns three interlocutory applications filed by the defendants (UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) in proceedings brought by Ballinno B.V. regarding European Patent EP1944067. The defendants sought an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs of at least €200,000, an adjustment of the value in dispute to €2,000,000, and the allocation of a technically qualified judge to the panel. The defendants argued that Ballinno, a Dutch company with unpaid issued capital of EUR 1 and no known assets other than the patent in suit, was unlikely to be able to reimburse litigation costs.
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.