Luxembourg (LU)
353 cases · page 12 of 12
Showing 331–352NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a party's name in five revocation actions. The respondent, Juul Labs International, Inc., appealed an order that corrected a clerical error in the defendant's name from 'Juul Labs, Inc.' to 'Juul Labs International, Inc.'. The court rejected the appeal, affirming the procedural correction. Crucially, the decision also provided guidance on cost allocation, stating that since this is not a final judgment on the merits of the revocation actions, costs will be determined later.
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 appellant, Juul Labs International, Inc., challenged the initial court order that corrected the name from 'Juul Labs, Inc.' to 'Juul Labs International, Inc.'. The Court ultimately rejected this appeal, upholding the administrative correction. Crucially, the ruling also provided a detailed interpretation of UPC Rules regarding costs, confirming that cost allocation can only occur in the final decision on the merits.
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 appellant, Juul Labs International, Inc., challenged the lower court's order to correct a clerical error regarding its corporate name. The Court rejected the appeal, affirming that the initial correction was appropriate. Crucially, the ruling also provided guidance on costs, stating that since this is not a final decision on the merits of the revocation actions, no cost orders will be issued at the appellate level.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the correct naming of parties in revocation actions. The respondent, NJOY Netherlands B.V., sought to rectify the defendant's name from 'Juul Labs, Inc.' to 'Juul Labs International, Inc.', which was deemed a clerical error. The court rejected the appeal against this rectification order, confirming that the procedural steps taken by the Court of First Instance were correct. Crucially, the ruling also clarified the timing for cost allocation in UPC proceedings.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC appeal case addressed the scope and continuation of confidentiality protections for sensitive business information. Curio Bioscience sought to restrict access to specific documents during appellate proceedings, but the UPC Board of Appeal found that a prior order from the Court of First Instance already covered these materials. The ruling emphasizes the continuity of protective measures under the UPC framework, preventing parties from seeking redundant relief.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appellate decision addresses procedural law concerning the review of a Rapporteur's decisions, specifically regarding an 'R.20.2-Unterrichtung' (notification that an opposition should be heard in the main proceedings). The court found that the Rapporteur improperly rejected an application for judicial review (R.333.1 VerfO) on their own authority. This ruling clarifies the strict procedural requirements for challenging a Rapporteur's actions, emphasizing that certain discretionary decisions must be subject to review by the full judicial body.
DexCom, Inc v.Abbott Laboratories
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the admissibility of an appeal against a confidentiality order issued by the Court of First Instance. The Appellants (Abbott) sought to challenge the penalty ceiling set in the order but failed because they had not obtained 'leave to appeal' as required by Rule 220.2 RoP. The court ruled that without this prerequisite authorization, the appeal was inadmissible from its inception.
DexCom, Inc v.Abbott Laboratories
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a fundamental procedural requirement: the necessity of obtaining leave to appeal. The case involved an attempt by Abbott Laboratories to challenge a confidentiality order issued in a patent infringement suit brought by DexCom, Inc. Despite withdrawing their appeal after learning that no leave had been granted, the Court of Appeal ruled it inadmissible from the start. This ruling serves as a strong reminder for practitioners regarding strict adherence to procedural rules when filing appeals within the UPC.
NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural correction in an ongoing provisional measures case involving NanoString Technologies and 10x Genomics concerning EP 4108782. The core ruling clarifies the established principles for interpreting European patent claims under Article 69 EPC. It emphasizes that interpretation must be holistic, considering the description and drawings alongside the literal claim language to ensure a balanced outcome between inventor protection and third-party certainty.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appeal addressed a procedural dispute concerning the deadline for a defendant to respond when a claimant expands their lawsuit by adding a new patent. The court emphasized the fundamental principle of due process, holding that defendants must receive equivalent defense opportunities as if a completely new claim had been filed. By overturning the lower court's determination of the start date, the UPC ensured procedural fairness and set a clear, extended deadline for the defendant.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.; NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH; NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal regarding provisional measures for infringement of EP 4 108 782, a patent covering methods for multiplex analyte detection. The court ultimately rejected the injunction request filed by 10x Genomics against NanoString Technologies. Beyond the outcome, the ruling provides important guidance on claim construction, stressing that interpretation must be holistic, integrating the description and drawings with the claims to ensure adequate protection while maintaining legal certainty.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appellate decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning claim expansion in ongoing infringement litigation. Netgear challenged the lower court's determination of the response deadline for Huawei after EP 3678321 was added to the case. The Appellate Court affirmed the principle that defendants must receive full defense rights, but corrected the start date of the period, ensuring procedural fairness and clarity. This ruling provides important guidance on how courts must manage deadlines when expanding patent claims mid-litigation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request to suspend infringement proceedings due to the insolvency filing (Chapter 11) of one of the defendants. The court rejected the suspension request, establishing a key principle that procedural efficiency and fairness outweigh automatic suspension when the bankruptcy occurs after the oral hearing and the case is ready for judgment. This ruling provides clarity on how UPC procedures interact with foreign insolvency laws.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural challenge concerning the timeliness of an appeal lodged by AIM Sport Development AG against a CFI decision that dismissed its actions. The dispute centers on whether the 15-day deadline set out in R.224.1(b) RoP applies to appeals seeking provisional measures (like preliminary injunctions under Art. 62 UPCA). While AIM sought to overturn the dismissal based on competence, the Court has paused proceedings to determine if the appeal itself is procedurally admissible due to a missed deadline.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion filed by Netgear seeking to accelerate the appellate proceedings against Huawei. Netgear argued that strict deadlines would prevent them from presenting their defense in time, given the urgency of the underlying case. However, the Board of Appeal rejected this request, emphasizing the importance of maintaining an orderly and fair procedure for all parties involved. The ruling serves as a reminder that procedural fairness often outweighs claims of urgent necessity in UPC litigation.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC decision concerns an application for acceleration of appeal proceedings filed by Netgear against a ruling that allowed the expansion of claims in the main infringement case. The Board of Appeal ultimately denied the request, emphasizing procedural fairness and proportionality. The court determined that granting the accelerated timeline would prejudice Huawei's right to prepare a proper defense response within the established legal framework.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC appellate decision concerns a dispute over court fees in an appeal filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The original case involved infringement allegations related to heart valve prostheses. The current ruling focuses purely on procedural matters, specifically determining the correct fee for the appeal based on the nature of the underlying decision (an order concerning provisional measures). The court ultimately ordered the appellants to pay a remaining balance of €9,500.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH; Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect concerning a cost order issued by the Court of First Instance (CFI). The CFI had ordered Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences to bear significant costs after the main provisional measures action became moot due to a cease-and-desist undertaking. The Appellants appealed this cost ruling, arguing that further procedural steps would incur unnecessary expenses. However, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected the application for suspensive effect, emphasizing the procedural priority given to timely cost decisions under the Rules of Procedure.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a complex procedural matter concerning the admissibility of discretionary review against an order issued by a Judge Rapporteur. Netgear sought to challenge the JR's refusal to refer a preliminary objection decision to the panel for review. The court ruled that the request was admissible, allowing the appeal to proceed against the JR's ruling on admissibility itself. This case clarifies the procedural pathways available under the UPC Rules when challenging initial case management decisions.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
In a procedural matter concerning the expedition of an appeal, the UPC Court of Appeal denied the request made by Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The core issue was whether to shorten the time period for the Respondent's Statement of response. The court emphasized principles of proportionality and due process, concluding that granting the expedited timeline would prejudice the Respondent's right to adequate preparation time. This decision highlights the Court's commitment to procedural fairness over merely accommodating a party's urgency.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
In a procedural matter concerning the expedition of an appeal, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected the request made by Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The core issue was whether to shorten the time period for Panasonic Holdings Corporation's Statement of response. The court ruled that due process and proportionality required giving the Respondent adequate time to prepare its defense, even if it meant delaying the proceedings.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected an application by OPPO and OROPE to shorten the time period for the Respondent, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, to file its Statement of response. The court emphasized that while expediency is desired, procedural fairness and proportionality must be maintained. This decision highlights the court's commitment to due process, even when it means delaying a party's preferred timeline.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH; Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.; Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the service of claims when supporting annexes are submitted later than the initial Statement of Claim. The court affirmed that a claim can be validly served even if it refers to future annexes, provided the core statement is complete enough for the defendant to assert their rights. Crucially, the ruling established that failure by the claimant to comply with simultaneous submission rules (Rule 13.2 RoP) automatically entitles the defendant to an extension of procedural deadlines equal to the delay period.
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.