Luxembourg (LU)
353 cases · page 11 of 12
Showing 301–329Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the procedural application of confidentiality rules (R. 262A RoP) during appeal proceedings. The court held that if information was already protected by a CFI order, parties do not need to file redundant requests for protection in the appellate phase. This streamlines litigation by preventing duplication of protective measures.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited et al.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural motions concerning an appeal against a security for costs order. ICPillar LLC sought suspensive effect on the order requiring them to deposit €400,000 and requested the appeal be expedited. The Court ultimately rejected both requests, emphasizing that while Article 74 UPCA provides grounds for granting suspensive effect, such relief must be exceptional. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural appeals should not unduly hinder proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal order addressed a procedural request by Volkswagen AG to submit additional written pleadings in an appeal concerning security for costs. The court found the request sufficiently reasoned, allowing Volkswagen to correct facts presented by Network System Technologies LLC. (NST). This decision highlights the flexibility of the UPC's rules regarding the exchange of evidence and arguments during appellate proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the exchange of written pleadings in an ongoing infringement appeal. Audi AG successfully requested permission to submit additional statements, arguing that the opposing party, NST, had misrepresented facts during the proceedings. The court granted this request, allowing both parties more time to present their arguments before the substantive issues are decided.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request from Volkswagen AG seeking permission to submit additional written pleadings in an appeal concerning security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC. The court confirmed that under the Rules of Procedure, parties can lodge reasoned requests to exchange further submissions if necessary to correct facts or clarify issues. By allowing this request, the Court ensured all relevant factual arguments could be presented before closing the written phase.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request regarding the exchange of written pleadings during an appeal concerning security for costs. Audi AG successfully argued that it needed to correct certain facts submitted by NST, and the Court granted permission for additional submissions. This ruling reinforces the flexibility within the UPC's Rules of Procedure (RoP), allowing parties to refine their arguments even late in the written phase if a reasoned request is made.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal order addresses a procedural motion in an appeal concerning security for costs. Volkswagen AG successfully requested permission to submit additional written pleadings, arguing the need to correct facts presented by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The court granted this request, allowing both parties to exchange further statements before closing the written procedure. This highlights the UPC's willingness to maintain a dynamic procedural environment to ensure all relevant factual and legal points are addressed.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the exchange of written pleadings during an appeal concerning security for costs. Audi AG successfully petitioned the court to allow it to submit additional facts and evidence, arguing that the initial proceedings contained factual errors by the opposing party, NST. The court granted this request, allowing both parties further time to refine their arguments before closing the written phase.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application to partially withdraw an appeal in an infringement case. The claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to remove two respondents (Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE) from the ongoing appeal proceedings. However, the Court ruled against this withdrawal, emphasizing that even indirect interests—such as those related to service obligations or the course of litigation—constitute a legitimate interest under UPC rules. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural fairness requires all affected parties to be heard.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical procedural requirement for opting out of the Unified Patent Court's jurisdiction. The court ruled that an opt-out application must be lodged by or on behalf of every proprietor holding any national part of the European patent. This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of Art. 83(3) UPCA, ensuring that no single owner can unilaterally remove a patent from UPC competence if co-ownership exists across different member states.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co, Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural issue of partially withdrawing an appeal against multiple defendants in a patent infringement case. Nera Innovations sought to withdraw its appeal specifically against two EU-based Xiaomi entities (NL and DE), arguing they lacked legitimate interest due to prior service of process. The court rejected this request, emphasizing that even if some parties are not directly affected by the procedural change, their right to due process must be protected. This ruling reinforces the importance of considering all stakeholders' interests when managing complex multi-defendant litigation in the UPC.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical procedural issue of staying revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings at the EPO. The court clarified that while harmonization is a goal, it does not mandate a stay simply because parallel actions exist. Crucially, acceleration requests by the patent proprietor are insufficient; the applicant must demonstrate an expectation of a rapid decision to justify halting UPC litigation.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings. The court found that the arguments presented were too vague and lacked sufficient substantiation to justify shortening any deadlines under R.9.3(b). This order highlights the strict requirements parties must meet when seeking procedural acceleration within the UPC framework.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Audi AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Audi argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The court found that the request lacked sufficient specificity and substantiation, upholding procedural norms and protecting the interests of the respondent, NST.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition made by Texas Instruments during an appeal concerning security for costs. The court rejected the motion, finding that the arguments presented were too vague and lacked sufficient substantiation to justify shortening any deadlines in the ongoing proceedings. This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for requesting procedural acceleration within the UPC framework.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
In a procedural matter concerning an appeal, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings and shorten deadlines. Volkswagen argued that delays were causing increased legal costs related to security for costs. The court ruled that the request lacked sufficient substantiation and specificity, emphasizing adherence to established procedural timelines and principles of proportionality.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Texas Instruments sought to accelerate the appeal process, arguing that delays increased its legal costs while awaiting security for costs. The court ultimately rejected this plea, finding the request too vague and lacking sufficient justification to override standard procedural timelines.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Texas Instruments sought to shorten deadlines due to ongoing legal costs related to the appeal against a security for costs dismissal. The court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the application was too vague and lacked sufficient justification to warrant altering the established timelines.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Audi AG sought to accelerate the appeal process against an earlier dismissal of its security for costs application. The court rejected this request, finding that it was too vague and lacked sufficient justification to warrant shortening deadlines. This highlights the strict requirements for requesting expedited proceedings within the UPC framework.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural order concerning an appeal against a dismissal of a security for costs application, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Volkswagen argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The court found that the request lacked sufficient specificity and substantiation, upholding procedural norms and protecting the respondent's interests.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Audi AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Audi argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b). The court found the request lacked sufficient substantiation and specificity, upholding standard procedural timelines.
VusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
VusionGroup SA appealed a decision rejecting its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology regarding EP 3883277, which covers electronic price labels. The UPC Board of Appeal found that the products manufactured by Hanshow did not meet all the technical requirements defined in the patent claims. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the initial rejection and holding VusionGroup liable for legal costs.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl; SCHNELL S.p.A.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to an appeal filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against an earlier decision. The original decision had revoked provisional measures for evidence preservation and ordered the return of gathered evidence. The court ruled that allowing immediate enforcement would severely undermine the Appellant's ability to successfully challenge the order. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the judicial discretion available under UPC rules to prevent procedural outcomes from becoming moot.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for an extension of time to lodge grounds of appeal in the main infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_169/2024). Daedalus Prime LLC sought additional time, arguing the complexity of the legal issues and potential precedent implications. The Panel ultimately denied this request, reinforcing the principle that parties must present thorough arguments proactively rather than relying on procedural delays to gather external opinions.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the time limit for lodging an appeal against an order from the Court of First Instance (CFI). The appellant, AIM Sport Development AG, argued that the CFI's own 'Information about appeal' stated a two-month deadline, even though the strict rule (R.224.1(b) RoP) mandated only 15 days for certain orders. Applying the principle of legitimate expectations, the Court of Appeal sided with AIM, finding the appeal admissible. This ruling highlights the importance of procedural fairness and how courts must interpret rules when CFI guidance creates a reasonable expectation.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 697 391, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Curio Bioscience's request to change the court language from German to English. The decision emphasized that fairness is paramount when considering such changes, particularly weighing the position of the defendant (10x Genomics). This case highlights the practical application of procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust proceedings based on linguistic and operational needs.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the timing for filing an appeal statement following the granting of leave to appeal. Toyota sought a default judgment against Neo, arguing that Neo missed the deadline based on the date of the initial order. The Court definitively ruled that the relevant 15-day period begins only upon service of the specific decision granting leave to appeal, not the original impugned order. This ruling provides crucial clarity for practitioners navigating procedural deadlines in UPC appeals.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore Sp. z o.o., Autostore System GmbH, Autostore System AT GmbH, Autostore System AB, Autostore System S.L, Autostore System Srl, Autostore AS, Autostore S.A.S.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope of public access to court documents under R.262.1(b) RoP, specifically in the context of a settlement reached in infringement proceedings. The court ruled that while confidentiality interests must be considered (Art. 45 UPCA), the general interest in justice and public order generally favors granting access unless the requester has a direct, specific legitimate interest in the subject matter. This ruling provides important guidance on balancing transparency with proprietary rights within UPC litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the effective date of service in an appeal. The case involved Xiaomi, which sought clarification on when it was formally served with the appeal documents due to technical glitches within the Case Management System (CMS). The court found that conflicting information and CMS misconfiguration led to confusion regarding the actual delivery date. Consequently, the Court ruled that April 3, 2024, must be recognized as the correct service date, ensuring Xiaomi's right to respond by the extended deadline.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a defendant's name in five revocation actions. The core issue was whether the initial clerical error, where 'Juul Labs, Inc.' was named instead of 'Juul Labs International, Inc.', invalidated the proceedings. The court rejected the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision to rectify the name, thereby allowing the underlying revocation actions to proceed.
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.