Lisbon (PT) Local Division
9 cases · page 1 of 1
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; Zentiva Portugal, LDA
This UPC decision addressed a request for public access to documents from a prior preliminary injunction case involving Boehringer and Zentiva. The Court ruled that while proceedings are generally open to the public, this principle must be balanced against the parties' need to protect sensitive commercial and personal information. Consequently, the Applicant was granted access to the requested pleadings, but only in redacted versions provided by the respondents.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda.
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC confirmed its exclusive jurisdiction over a pharmaceutical patent infringement case involving nintedanib. The Defendant attempted to challenge the Court's competence by arguing that the dispute was administrative, stemming from a national health authority's communication. However, the UPC rejected this objection, clarifying that the core issue is a private enforcement action based on the threat of infringement, not an administrative review. This decision allows the case to proceed to the substantive merits phase.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Ericsson and Asustek sets the stage for a complex patent dispute. The parties have agreed to proceed with both an infringement action by Ericsson and a counterclaim for revocation by Asustek. The Court has scheduled the interim conference and the main oral hearing, indicating that the case is moving forward toward substantive arguments.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA
Boehringer Ingelheim sought a preliminary injunction at the UPC against Zentiva Portugal regarding the generic version of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Boehringer alleged imminent infringement, but the Court ultimately rejected the application for provisional measures. However, in a notable cost allocation decision, the Court ordered Boehringer to pay the interim legal costs incurred by Zentiva, setting a precedent on how costs are determined even when the main relief is denied.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC; DIGITAL RIVER IRELAND LTD.
Ericsson initiated an infringement action against AsusTek and Digital River concerning EP 2 819 131 B1. Due to Digital River's insolvency, Ericsson sought leave to withdraw the claim against that defendant. The UPC Court granted this partial withdrawal, allowing the main case to proceed solely against AsusTek. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility of the UPC in managing cases involving insolvent parties while maintaining fairness.
Asustek Computer Inc. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This UPC decision addressed a cost application following the dismissal of an infringement preliminary injunction filed by Ericsson against AsusTek, Arvato, and Digital River. The Court ruled that while general legal costs should be assessed as part of the main action to uphold proportionality and prevent double recovery, travel expenses specific to the PI proceedings could be awarded if properly substantiated. This decision provides clarity on how cost assessments interact between preliminary measures and subsequent merits actions under the UPC framework.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Ericsson sought a preliminary injunction against AsusTek, Digital River, and Arvato regarding the alleged infringement of EP 2 819 131 B1 by laptops containing specific Intel Wi-Fi modules. The UPC Local Division in Lisbon ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. While the court affirmed that offering products via an internet domain constitutes infringement, it found that Ericsson failed to meet the cumulative requirements necessary to grant the preliminary injunction.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
Ericsson successfully sought leave to amend its preliminary injunction application in the UPC, specifically adjusting the scope of liability concerning Arvato's role as a service intermediary. The Court granted this amendment, allowing Ericsson to proceed with direct infringement claims against ASUSTek and Digital River Ireland while limiting Arvato's liability under Article 62(1) UPCA. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex supply chain litigation by allowing claimants to refine their legal theories based on factual developments.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC; Arvato Netherlands B.V.; Digital River Ireland Ltd.
In this preliminary injunction proceeding, Ericsson sought to proceed despite alleged non-compliance by its opponents with disclosure rules (R. 13.1(h) RoP). The defendants argued that the lack of full documentation from prior proceedings harmed their defense. However, the UPC Court ultimately dismissed the defendants' request, finding that R. 13.1(h) only requires information about the existence of prior actions, not the exhaustive disclosure of all associated evidence like pleadings or expert reports. This decision clarifies the scope of procedural compliance in urgent provisional measures cases.
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.