Luxembourg (LU)
353 cases · page 1 of 12
Showing 1–29Amazon.com, Inc. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the rules surrounding the use of private transcripts derived from oral hearing recordings. The court ruled that while a full transcript is not automatically provided by the UPC, parties can obtain one with professional assistance if specific conditions are met. These conditions include clearly labeling the document as non-authoritative and ensuring compliance with all confidentiality and data protection mandates.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal concerning provisional measures related to a CGM patent. The court confirmed its jurisdiction based on the likelihood of damage arising from products intended for UPC Member States. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, and the Appellants were ordered to pay €200,000 in interim costs to the Respondent. This case reinforces the broad jurisdictional reach of the UPC when infringing goods are marketed within the territory.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This appeal court ruling addresses a procedural dispute regarding the jurisdiction for determining litigation costs following an initial judgment and subsequent appeals. Rematec sought to have its costs application referred back to the Local Division (GEI) based on prior rulings, but the Appeal Court denied this request. The court clarified that cost determination always originates at the GEI under the Rules of Procedure, regardless of whether the application follows a decision from the Appeal Court. This reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC litigation.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involved multiple appeals concerning infringement and international jurisdiction related to a juice extractor patent. The court addressed complex procedural issues regarding how parties establish their choice of forum under Brussels Ia Regulation, while also reviewing the merits of the claims. Ultimately, the appeal decisions were partially set aside, confirming certain jurisdictional limitations but maintaining the financial value of the dispute at €675,000.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural matters in a dispute over neuromodulation systems. While the core infringement appeal was dismissed, the court issued an order regarding provisional costs. The ruling reinforces principles on how non-registered claims can be asserted and clarifies the standards for determining indirect patent use (Verwendungsbestimmung) based on objective evidence. This case is significant for practitioners dealing with procedural hurdles in complex medical device IP litigation.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. v.Amgen, Inc
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns procedural matters, specifically the withdrawal of applications for rehearing in a complex dispute involving Sanofi and Amgen over patent EP 3 666 797. Following earlier proceedings where the Central Division had revoked the patent, both parties engaged in appeals and subsequent requests for rehearing. Ultimately, the Court permitted the withdrawal of these procedural actions upon consent from all involved parties. This case highlights how UPC courts manage complex litigation pathways when parties agree to terminate specific stages of the legal process.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS v.Amgen N.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal in a pharmaceutical infringement case (Sanofi/Regeneron v. Amgen). Although the parties successfully withdrew the proceedings, citing an agreement and consent from all parties, the court strictly ruled on the financial aspects. The request for reimbursement of court fees was dismissed because the withdrawal occurred after the written procedure had been closed, demonstrating the Court's adherence to procedural timelines.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This UPC Appeals Board decision addressed ALPINA's request for suspensive effect against the initial infringement judgment issued by the Local Court. ALPINA argued that immediate enforcement would cause irreparable harm, especially given ongoing parallel validity proceedings. However, the court rejected this argument, finding that ALPINA failed to provide concrete evidence of significant damages or specific costs associated with the alleged infringement and subsequent required modifications. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests for suspension must be grounded in demonstrable, present disadvantages.
Amgen N.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Amgen against a prior ruling in infringement proceedings. The case, involving major biotech players like Regeneron and Sanofi, was ultimately withdrawn because the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Although the court permitted the procedural withdrawal, it strictly denied Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees, highlighting the precise application of UPC Rules of Procedure regarding timing and fee recovery.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for applications seeking suspensive effect. The court emphasized that parties must present their full case upfront, meaning subsequent applications based on similar arguments are inadmissible. This ruling reinforces the principle of judicial efficiency and timely disclosure in complex patent litigation.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a dispute over the confidentiality of business information disclosed during infringement proceedings. EOFlow sought to classify internal data, such as turnover numbers and pricing, as confidential under R. 262.2 RoP. The court ruled against EOFlow, emphasizing that mere disclosure in litigation does not automatically grant trade secret protection if specific protective measures are absent. This reinforces the strict requirements for maintaining confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding the determination of FRAND license terms in essential patent litigation. Vivo challenged the Paris Local Division's ruling that deferred the FRAND claim to the main proceedings, arguing it lacked UPC competence. The CoA affirmed this deferral, establishing that the FRAND determination is intrinsically linked to and dependent upon the finding of infringement, thus making it a matter for the main court to decide.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict procedural requirements governing ex parte orders for evidence preservation. Ecovacs sought an inspection order against Roborock, but the Local Division revoked it due to incomplete disclosure by Ecovacs regarding Roborock's direct market activities. The Court of Appeal upheld this revocation, stressing that applicants have a heightened duty under R. 192.3 RoP to disclose all material facts influencing the court’s decision, regardless of whether those facts are later introduced in the main action.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE INC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses complex jurisdictional challenges raised by multiple respondents against a patent infringement suit. The court ruled that the UPC is incompetent to adjudicate claims concerning alleged infringements occurring outside the EU, specifically naming Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland. Crucially, the claimant failed to meet evidentiary requirements regarding assets within the jurisdiction necessary for certain jurisdictional arguments under Regulation 1215/2012. This case reinforces strict limits on the UPC's international reach.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. v.F. Hoffmann- La Roche AG
This UPC appeal case involved an application for interim measures concerning patent EP 1 962 668, filed by Menarini Diagnostics against Roche. After the initial proceedings at the Local Division of Düsseldorf, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the claimants withdrew their request for provisional relief. The UPC Board of Appeal accepted this withdrawal and terminated the case, highlighting the importance of amicable resolution in complex patent litigation.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU; Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.; Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH; Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the retrospective extension of deadlines in preliminary measures proceedings. The Defendants sought to overturn a Local Division order that granted an extension based on human error, arguing it circumvented strict rules for missed deadlines (R. 320 RoP). The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division's ruling, emphasizing judicial discretion and procedural stability over challenging the initial decision.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal concerning provisional measures in a dispute over hair care appliances. The court upheld the injunction against Dreame's products but clarified key legal principles regarding claim construction and the scope of injunctive relief. Specifically, it ruled that infringement risk extends beyond previously committed acts, strengthening the basis for broad interim protection.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson successfully appealed a provisional measures decision against Dreame's hair styling products before the UPC Court of Appeal. The court upheld the injunction and extended its scope to cover newer versions of Dreame's curling attachments, confirming that infringement is sufficient grounds for preventing future unauthorized use. This ruling provides clarity on how courts interpret claim features in relation to physical configurations and reinforces the broad application of provisional measures.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This Court of Appeal decision addresses a complex provisional measures application concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought an injunction against Dreame International and Eurep for infringing EP 3 119 235 with its multi-functional hairdryers. While the court granted the requested provisional measures within the UPC Territory, it simultaneously referred key jurisdictional questions regarding Spain and the role of the authorized representative (Eurep) to the CJEU. This highlights the Court's careful balancing act between immediate injunctive relief and ensuring legal certainty across different EU jurisdictions.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited and Eurep GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involves a complex dispute over provisional measures concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought to prevent infringement by Dreame International and Eurep, who marketed products through websites. The court found jurisdictional questions regarding the role of EU-based intermediaries (Eurep) in facilitating third-state infringement were too complex for it to resolve alone. Consequently, the Court referred key legal questions to the CJEU while simultaneously issuing provisional measures against certain defendants within the UPC Territory.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of an appeal filed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V against a prior infringement judgment issued by the Local Division in favor of HL Display AB. Due to pending settlement discussions, Black Sheep withdrew its appeal with the consent of HL Display. The court formally permitted this withdrawal and addressed the associated application for reimbursement of court fees under the updated Rules of Procedure.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application for further written pleadings during an ongoing infringement appeal. The claimant, Hurom, sought additional time to respond to new arguments and prior art documents introduced by the respondents (NUC). The court ultimately rejected this request, prioritizing the principle of efficient conduct and the upcoming oral hearing. This ruling reinforces the strict procedural timelines within the UPC's written phase.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH v.Washtower IP B.V.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the parties agreed to settle the dispute regarding provisional measures. The court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal, contingent on Washtower covering all legal costs and compensating Bega for any damages resulting from the initial injunctions. Crucially, the court determined the value in dispute at €530,000, applying a specific calculation method derived from the Guidelines to assess recoverable costs.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal order addresses a procedural request by Sibio Technology Limited seeking further written pleadings during an appeal against a revocation judgment. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that appeals must be based on the record established at the Court of First Instance. The ruling clarifies the scope of appellate proceedings under the UPC Rules of Procedure, ensuring efficiency while maintaining due process.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge by EOFlow against penalty payments and costs imposed by the Court of First Instance following an infringement finding related to insulin pump technology. EOFlow sought discretionary review, arguing that procedural deadlines were not strictly applicable in their case. The CoA ultimately dismissed this request, emphasizing strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure (R. 220.3 RoP). This ruling serves as a strong reminder for patent practitioners about the critical importance of timely procedural filings within the UPC framework.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for a rehearing filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against Microsoft Corporation. Suinno argued that the prior decisions were based on fundamental procedural defects, warranting a re-opening of the infringement proceedings. The Court firmly rejected this claim, emphasizing that a rehearing is not a regular appeal but an extraordinary remedy reserved only for truly intolerable procedural flaws. The ruling reinforces the principle of legal certainty in UPC proceedings, making it clear that parties must raise all relevant objections during the initial stages and appeals, rather than attempting to circumvent finality through applications for rehearing.
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a legal representative firm, seeking public access to documents from pending infringement proceedings (Boehringer v. Zentiva). The court established strict criteria for such requests, emphasizing that they must be highly specified and not based on relevance criteria set by the applicant. While acknowledging the general interest in transparency, the Court ultimately granted limited access only to specific redacted pleadings, balancing this against the need to protect sensitive commercial information.
Gowling WLG v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited (jointly 'Sumi Agro')
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for public access to case files, specifically concerning the scope and specificity required when requesting documents. Gowling WLG sought access to various pleadings from an appeal proceeding (UPC_CoA_523/2024). The court partially granted the request, allowing access to specified written submissions after redaction of personal data. However, the broad and non-specific nature of the exhibit request was rejected, setting a clear procedural boundary for document disclosure in UPC proceedings.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling on security for costs, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned an order requiring Syntorr LP to provide a €2 million bank guarantee against Arthrex companies. The court found that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance, which included an anti-avoidance endorsement and was issued by an EU-licensed insurer, provided adequate financial protection. This decision provides important clarity on the acceptance of alternative security mechanisms in UPC proceedings, particularly for SMEs.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Guardant Health against Sophia Genetics concerning a provisional measures proceeding. Guardant sought to suspend the interim award of EUR 400,000 in costs granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI). The court ultimately rejected this request, holding that the appeal lacked the necessary exceptional circumstances to override the general rule that appeals do not have suspensive effect. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC proceedings.
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.