Luxembourg (LU)
353 cases · page 10 of 12
Showing 271–299Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed requests for the expedition of appeals concerning the validity of European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to a prosthetic heart valve. The court ultimately rejected Meril's pleas for an expedited timeline. The ruling reinforces that procedural concerns regarding potential injunction risks must be managed through existing mechanisms within the UPC, rather than solely relying on accelerated timetables.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addressed requests for expedition in multiple appeals concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent covering a prosthetic heart valve. The court ultimately rejected Meril's pleas to accelerate the proceedings, citing that existing legal mechanisms could manage the risks associated with pending validity challenges. This decision reinforces the standard procedural timetable of the UPC unless exceptional circumstances are met.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding jurisdiction within the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Advanced Bionics sought to transfer an infringement case to the Central Board to coordinate proceedings with a parallel revocation action. The UPC Appeals Board rejected this request, emphasizing that Article 33 of the EPC mandates party consent for such a jurisdictional shift. This ruling reinforces the strict adherence to procedural rules over convenience in managing complex litigation.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed an application by Advanced Bionics to change the proceedings language from German to English, matching the patent's language. The court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while factors like industry standard language (English) and the patent language are considered, they do not override considerations such as parties' domicile and existing procedural arrangements. This case reinforces the UPC's discretionary approach to language changes, requiring a careful balancing of interests rather than relying solely on technical or commercial convenience.
AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This UPC appeal decision addresses complex issues of international jurisdiction in patent infringement cases involving internet-based services. The court provided a clear interpretation of how Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation applies to digital infringement, stating that potential damage can arise from accessing services within the member state where the patent is effective. This ruling provides significant guidance for practitioners dealing with cross-border streaming and software patents.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Ballinno B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an appeal proceeding concerning EP 1 944 067. The Kinexon companies and UEFA successfully argued that the respondent, Ballinno B.V., lacked sufficient financial means to guarantee the reimbursement of legal expenses. Consequently, the court mandated Ballinno to provide € 25,000 in security for costs. This ruling reinforces the UPC's ability to manage litigation risk by ensuring that parties with questionable financial standing can be required to secure their potential cost obligations.
AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This decision from the UPC Board of Appeal addresses procedural matters concerning an appeal filed by Aylo companies against a prior local court order. The core issue was whether the parties could unilaterally submit additional arguments under Rule 9.1. The Board firmly rejected this interpretation, clarifying that all supplementary submissions must be approved by the presiding judge in accordance with Rules 36 and 220.4 of the UPC Rules of Procedure. This ruling reinforces strict procedural control within the UPC litigation framework.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning an order from the Court of First Instance that rejected Microsoft's application to declare Suinno's infringement action manifestly inadmissible. The court ruled that such orders, which deal with case management and procedural admissibility (R.361 RoP), are not subject to discretionary appeal under Rule 220.3 RoP. Instead, they must be challenged via an application for review by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Ona Patents SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the timing of written submissions in an ongoing patent dispute involving Apple and Ona Patents SL. The court strictly interpreted the Rules of Procedure, holding that requests for further pleadings must be filed before the rapporteur concludes the written phase and schedules the oral hearing. Consequently, the appellants' late submission was rejected, allowing the case to proceed as planned.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This UPC appeal addressed the scope of confidentiality protections and the inclusion of in-house counsel under Rule 262A RoP. The claimants argued that their respondents' US-based in-house patent attorneys posed an inherent risk of misusing confidential information for parallel litigation strategies, demanding a 'prosecution bar.' However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that abstract risks are insufficient to deny access if no concrete evidence of misconduct exists. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural necessity and expert involvement often outweigh theoretical confidentiality concerns in UPC proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning provisional measures granted by the CFI. The core issue was whether the CFI's finding that Ireland was a Contracting Member State justified granting the injunction there. The court ruled this reasoning was manifestly erroneous, as Ireland had not ratified the UPCA. Consequently, it partially granted the request for suspensive effect only regarding the Irish territory.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the effective date of service for an appeal statement in a pharmaceutical patent case (EP 3167888). The core issue was whether direct communication between parties via specialized electronic mailboxes ('beA') could count as valid service. The court definitively ruled that only service effected by the Registry through the official CMS is considered effective under UPC rules.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC appellate case involved an application by 10x Genomics to reopen proceedings following a ruling that overturned an initial injunction against NanoString Technologies. 10x argued that the original judgment violated fundamental procedural rights, specifically regarding the court's reliance on its own technical expertise rather than party-submitted evidence. The Appellate Court firmly rejected this claim, stating that judicial assessment of facts and evidence is not subject to review in a reopening application, thereby upholding the previous decisions.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding service of process on non-EU defendants, specifically those based in China and Hong Kong. Panasonic challenged the court's requirement for prior Hague Convention service attempts before allowing service via an EU group company (Xiaomi DE). The Board upheld the lower court's stance, emphasizing that corporate structure alone does not satisfy the requirements for valid cross-border service to non-EU jurisdictions. This ruling reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC cases involving international defendants, particularly when attempting to leverage intra-group relationships for jurisdictional purposes.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict rules governing service of process for defendants located outside the EU, specifically in China and Taiwan. The court ruled that a group company within an EU Member State cannot substitute for the statutory seat or principal place of business of its foreign affiliate. This ruling emphasizes that parties must follow established international procedures, such as the Hague Convention, when serving claims on non-EU entities.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addressed Alexion Pharmaceuticals' appeal against a prior decision concerning provisional measures. The core issue was Alexion's request for an expedited hearing, arguing that the matter was purely legal and required swift resolution. The Court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing the need to balance due process with the respondent's interests, thereby maintaining standard procedural timelines.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company; Amgen N.V.; Amgen GmbH; Amgen AB; Amgen S.A.S.; Amgen s.r.l.; Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda.; Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding its application for provisional measures against Amgen entities. The appeal sought an expedited hearing process under UPC Rules of Procedure. However, the Court of Appeal ultimately rejected the request for expedition, finding that Alexion's arguments were insufficient to outweigh the respondents' interests in maintaining standard procedural timelines. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain accelerated proceedings within the Unified Patent Court framework.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of serving legal documents on defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong during infringement proceedings. NEC Corporation sought alternative service methods, such as email or public notice, but the Court rejected these requests. The ruling reinforces that while the UPC has its own procedural rules, they must operate within the framework of international conventions (like the Hague Convention) and respect the national laws of the contracting states. This decision serves as a critical reminder to practitioners about the strict requirements for cross-border service in the UPC.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of serving legal documents on defendants domiciled in non-EU jurisdictions, specifically China and Hong Kong. NEC Corporation sought to use alternative service methods (email or public notice) for its TCL counterparts, but the Court rejected this request. The ruling reinforces that procedural formalities regarding international service cannot be bypassed simply due to the claimant's desire for a swift remedy, emphasizing adherence to both UPC rules and relevant national laws.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.VusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA)
This UPC Appeals Board decision clarifies the procedural rules governing cost determination in complex litigation. The court ruled that even when a party seeks to recover costs related to the appeals process itself, the application must ultimately be filed with and decided by the Court of First Instance. This ruling reinforces the structured nature of the UPC's procedure, ensuring that all final cost determinations follow the established framework (R. 150 ff. VerfO). Practitioners should note this when planning their costs recovery strategy in multi-stage UPC proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed requests concerning auxiliary claims and deadlines in a provisional measures appeal involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The court ultimately rejected Abbott's attempts to disregard the Respondents' request for an extension of time. This decision highlights the court's careful balancing act between parties' interests, particularly when new procedural requests are introduced late in proceedings.
Simulity Labs Limited v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the confidentiality of evidence (Exhibit 4) in an ongoing infringement action involving ARM and ICPillar. The Court rejected ICPillar's request to keep the exhibit confidential, prioritizing transparency for the main proceedings. Crucially, the court balanced this by granting both parties opportunities to amend their respective statements based on the newly available information, thereby addressing concerns about equality of arms.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Vivisol B BV
This UPC appeal addressed a procedural request by Vivisol B BV seeking to suspend proceedings and extend deadlines related to an infringement action brought by OrthoApnea S.L. The Court of Appeal ultimately rejected the suspension request, ruling that parties must adhere to standard litigation procedures regardless of potential future appellate outcomes. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural steps in UPC cases must proceed without undue delay, even when substantive issues are under appeal.
Simulity Labs Limited v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application concerning the confidentiality of evidence (Exhibit 4) in an ongoing infringement action involving ARM and ICPillar. The court rejected ICPillar's request to keep the information confidential, deeming the justification insufficient. Consequently, the unredacted version of the exhibit was made available to the Respondents, allowing them time to amend their pleadings.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural issues surrounding evidence preservation and inspection under Article 60 UPCA. The court established that the disclosure of preserved evidence is not automatic; it requires balancing the applicant's need for information against the respondent's right to protect confidential trade secrets. Crucially, the ruling clarified the timing mechanism for revocation of measures, linking the deadline to when the evidence is actually disclosed or access is denied. This decision provides vital guidance on managing confidentiality in preliminary UPC proceedings.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG et al. v.Ona Patents SL
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Apple seeking to accelerate the appeal process and reduce the deadline for Ona's reply. The court ultimately denied the request, holding that while acceleration was possible, Apple failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to override Ona's right to a fair trial. This case underscores the judiciary's careful balancing act between party efficiency demands and fundamental procedural fairness within the UPC framework.
ARM Limited v.ICPillar LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application concerning service and confidentiality during appeal proceedings related to infringement of EP 3000239. Although the court confirmed that ARM was technically served with ICPillar's statement of appeal, it acknowledged technical difficulties preventing ARM from accessing the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy). Consequently, the Court granted an extension for ARM to file its response, ensuring due process is maintained despite CMS issues.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this procedural case before the UPC Court of Appeal, 10x Genomics appealed an order from the CFI regarding provisional measures against Curio Bioscience. After requesting withdrawal and receiving consent from Curio, the Court granted the request. The ruling clarifies that even when an appeal is withdrawn by mutual agreement, the withdrawing party (10x) must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, setting a clear precedent for cost allocation in UPC appellate practice.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a stay of proceedings in a patent revocation action. Mala Technologies, the patent proprietor, sought to halt the main revocation case pending decisions on preliminary objections and parallel national appeals. The Court ultimately denied this request, citing that the interests of the defendant (Nokia Technology) in obtaining a swift validity decision outweighed the claimant's interest in cost avoidance. This ruling reinforces the principle that UPC proceedings should proceed unhindered by procedural appeals unless exceptional circumstances are met.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope and persistence of confidential information protection orders (R.262A RoP) across different procedural stages. The court held that confidentiality obligations established by the CFI remain fully effective in subsequent appeal proceedings, negating the need for redundant protective measures. This ruling provides clarity on how parties must manage sensitive evidence when appealing decisions.
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.