Denied
at Hamburg (DE) Local Division
14 denied decisions from Hamburg (DE) Local Division.
Denied Decisions
14 cases | Page 1 of 1
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.
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.
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.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Hamburg Local Division addressed a request by multiple defendants to compel the Chinese claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., to provide security for costs. The Court rejected the motion, emphasizing that nationality or domicile alone cannot justify such an order. The ruling reinforces the principle that parties must present concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties rather than relying on general assumptions about foreign judgment recognition.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought provisional measures against Speed Care Mineral GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of its patent on clay-based hemostatic agents. The UPC Local Division in Hamburg dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to provide sufficient certainty that the Defendant's product contained a binder element as required by the patent claims. This decision highlights the high evidentiary threshold required for applicants seeking urgent relief like preliminary injunctions under the UPC framework.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. sued Cisco Systems for infringing its European patent EP2201740, which covers methods for fast packet processing in wireless networks aimed at reducing latency. The case also involved a counterclaim by the defendants challenging the validity of the patent. The UPC Local Chamber ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim. This decision underscores the importance of comprehensive patent interpretation under Article 69 EPC when assessing complex networking technologies.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V.
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a preliminary objection raised by Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. against Visibly Inc.'s infringement claim concerning patent EP3918974. The defendants argued that claims based on director liability or tort were outside the UPC's competence. The Court rejected this argument, confirming that jurisdiction extends to such claims under Article 7(2) of Brussels I recast and establishing competence via Article 33(1)(a) UPCA due to the service being offered in Germany. This ruling clears the path for the main infringement proceedings.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In a significant preliminary order, the UPC Local Division Hamburg rejected the request by Tandem Diabetes Care to stay an infringement action concerning its t:slim X2 insulin pump. The court emphasized the efficiency of the UPC system, stating that it is appropriate for the local division to hear both the infringement claim and the pending revocation actions simultaneously. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural delays should not impede the pursuit of patent rights when a joint hearing can ensure a uniform legal outcome.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC rejected a request by Xiaomi entities to extend their deadline for filing a statement of defense in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC regarding a patented chip technology. The court emphasized that the existing time limits are robust enough to handle complex international technical coordination and did not accept arguments related to supplier confidentiality or lack of internal technical insight as sufficient grounds for an exception. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining strict procedural timelines while offering specific mechanisms, such as R. 262A RoP, for handling confidential information.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen N.V. a.o. (including its subsidiaries and affiliates)
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Amgen's biosimilar product, BEKEMV®, which treats paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). The UPC Local Division dismissed Alexion's application for provisional measures. The court ruled that while infringement could be established, the patent's validity could not be proven with sufficient certainty, particularly due to concerns regarding insufficient disclosure of the claims. This decision highlights the high bar required in UPC preliminary injunction proceedings when patent validity is contested.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Samsung Bioepis regarding its biosimilar product Epysqli®, which challenges Alexion's patented antibody for treating PNH. The UPC Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. The court found that while infringement could be established, there was insufficient certainty regarding the patent's validity to warrant an immediate injunction.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
Ballinno B.V. sought a provisional injunction against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH regarding its patent covering methods for detecting offside situations using sound signals in sports. The UPC Court of First Instance dismissed the application for provisional measures. The court's decision highlighted the importance of demonstrating urgency when pursuing infringement claims, noting that a prolonged period without significant efforts to clarify potential infringement can be detrimental. This ruling serves as a cautionary note regarding procedural diligence in urgent patent litigation.
Daedalus 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.
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.