Partially Granted
at Hamburg (DE) Local Division
13 partially granted decisions from Hamburg (DE) Local Division.
Partially Granted Decisions
13 cases | Page 1 of 1
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the scope and access rights under a confidentiality order in an infringement action involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi Technology. The Claimant sought to expand access for its US counsel and include all future confidential information, arguing this was necessary for effective litigation strategy. The Panel rejected these requests, affirming that the initial restrictions were appropriate given jurisdictional constraints and the need for defined scope. Crucially, the Court granted leave to appeal for the Claimant.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd. in the UPC regarding its electric toothbrush patent (EP3197316). The case centered on alleged infringement by Oclean's toothbrushes, despite previous settlement efforts. This decision underscores the effectiveness of provisional measures in swiftly addressing ongoing market infringements within the unified European patent system.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC preliminary procedure case involved a dispute over evidence production between 10x Genomics and Vizgen concerning the EP patent EP4108782. The defendant, Vizgen, sought various documents from both claimants to support its contractual and competition law defenses. The court partially granted the request, compelling the claimants to produce a specific license agreement related to FISSEQ technology. This decision highlights the interplay between UPC evidence rules and limitations imposed by parallel US litigation protective orders.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This UPC decision addresses applications for provisional measures in a dispute involving sports technology patents. The Court upheld the defendants' right to request security for costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA, setting the required amount at €56,000. Crucially, the Panel dismissed the request for a technically qualified judge, asserting its own competence to handle the physics-related issues given the complexity and time sensitivity of the case.
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.