Outcome Category

Denied

at Lisbon (PT) Local Division

3 denied decisions from Lisbon (PT) Local Division.

Denied Decisions

3 cases | Page 1 of 1

patent denied · May 8, 2025

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · ORD_18599/2025

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.

patent denied · Oct 15, 2024

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V.

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · ORD_52116/2024

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.

patent denied · Aug 16, 2024

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC; Arvato Netherlands B.V.; Digital River Ireland Ltd.

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · ORD_46326/2024

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.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →