Pending
at Hamburg (DE) Local Division
19 pending decisions from Hamburg (DE) Local Division.
Pending Decisions
19 cases | Page 1 of 1
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
In this procedural order, the UPC dismissed MediaTek Inc.'s preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction in an infringement case brought by Daedalus Prime LLC. The claimant alleged that MediaTek was liable for supplying processors used in infringing Xiaomi smartphones marketed across UPC territories. The court ruled that despite MediaTek's non-domicile status, international jurisdiction is established because the patent has effect in Member States and a commercial relationship exists between the parties. This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings to continue.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, the Rapporteur addressed a motion by Xiaomi entities seeking to summarily dismiss the claimant's request for amending the patent claims. The court emphasized the principle of procedural economy, holding that complex substantive issues concerning the validity and scope of patent amendments should not be decided prematurely. Instead, these matters are reserved for the main proceedings, ensuring a comprehensive review by the full judicial panel.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the timing of patent amendments during infringement proceedings. The court examined an application by President and Fellows of Harvard College to amend its patent based on developments in parallel EPO opposition proceedings. While the initial amendment request was rejected, the court allowed an appeal because the question of when subsequent amendments can be filed under Rule 30.2 VerfO has broad significance for UPC practice. This case highlights the strict procedural requirements governing changes to patent claims mid-litigation.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This UPC decision is a procedural ruling concerning the correct service date of infringement claims filed against a Swiss defendant. The court clarified that because Switzerland falls outside the EU, standard fictional rules for deemed service do not apply, meaning the actual delivery date must be recognized. This highlights the importance of correctly applying jurisdictional and procedural rules when serving documents across international borders in UPC proceedings.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc.
This UPC preliminary order addressed a dispute over the confidentiality of documents related to the transfer of Patent EP2792100 from its original owner to Daedalus Prime LLC. The Claimant sought highly restricted access, arguing that details like purchase price were confidential and irrelevant to technical employees. The Court ultimately granted limited access to two specific in-house legal counsels on the Defendants' side (Xiaomi/MediaTek), while denying broader access to all personnel, thereby balancing commercial secrecy with procedural fairness.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this UPC case concerning the patent EP2792100, Daedalus Prime LLC sought to restrict access to confidential documents related to the patent transfer agreement. The Court of First Instance issued a preliminary order balancing confidentiality concerns with procedural fairness for the Defendants (Xiaomi and MediaTek). While granting restricted access to specific in-house legal counsel, the court rejected the Claimant's argument that all employees were irrelevant, but also limited access based on job function.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for discovery/document production (Verfahrensanordnung) in an infringement case involving 10x Genomics and Vizgen regarding EP4108782. The court ordered the exchange of numerous documents, including deposition transcripts from both sides, which originated from parallel US litigation. A key aspect of the ruling is the imposition of strict confidentiality protocols ('Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only') on all disclosed materials to protect sensitive business information.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH a.o.
This UPC decision between Avago Technologies and Tesla addresses critical procedural aspects of a complex infringement and revocation case concerning power control systems used in vehicles. The court clarified that initial delays due to CMS workflow usage are acceptable, providing flexibility early in the proceedings. Crucially, it affirmed the principle of partial revocation under Article 65(3) EPC, meaning claims can be invalidated selectively rather than requiring total patent destruction.
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
In a complex infringement case involving AGFA NV and the Gucci group, the UPC Local Division issued a critical procedural order granting confidentiality protection to sensitive business information. The defendants successfully argued that their internal supply chain data, sales figures, and quality control metrics constituted trade secrets under EU law. This ruling is significant as it establishes clear boundaries for evidence disclosure in high-stakes luxury goods litigation within the UPC framework.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion concerning the admissibility of evidence regarding corporate authority and patent assignment validity in an underlying dispute. The court ruled that while general power of attorney documents were provided, specific Board of Directors' resolutions authorizing the transfer of the disputed patent were necessary for the respondent to properly assess the claimant's legal standing. This highlights the critical importance of internal corporate governance documentation in complex IP litigation.
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.