Hamburg (DE) Local Division
64 cases · page 3 of 3
Showing 61–63Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed the method of serving a complaint in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against several Xiaomi and MediaTek entities. The plaintiff argued that certain German branch offices could serve as valid places for service under UPCA Rules 271.5 RoP, despite the defendants being foreign-domiciled. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the strict hierarchy of procedural rules governing international service. The ruling clarified that when defendants are domiciled outside the UPCA territory, standard international procedures like the Hague Service Convention must be followed under Rules 273 and 274 RoP. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established international legal frameworks for proper litigation procedure in the UPC.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a case concerning patent infringement, the UPC Local Division issued a final order regarding confidentiality of business information. The court determined that projected sales results submitted by Tesla were indeed trade secrets, necessitating strict access limitations. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it reinforces the robust protection available for commercially sensitive data within ongoing UPC litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a case concerning patent infringement, the UPC Local Division issued a final order regarding confidentiality. The court ruled that certain documents containing projected sales results constituted protected trade secrets under EU law. This ruling significantly restricts who can access these sensitive business forecasts during the ongoing litigation, emphasizing the protection of commercial interests within the UPC framework.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the court issued a complex order regarding document disclosure stemming from parallel US litigation. The respondent sought to introduce evidence related to non-technical issues (such as competitive practices) into the European proceedings. The court granted the submission of specific documents but imposed stringent confidentiality requirements ('Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only'), balancing the need for evidence with protecting trade secrets.
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.