Luxembourg (LU)
353 cases · page 2 of 12
Showing 31–59Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning procedural fairness in the UPC, the Court of Appeal addressed an application for security for costs. The court held that if a claimant holds comprehensive litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement (AAE) from an EU insurer, this coverage is sufficient to mitigate the risk of non-recoverable legal costs. This decision provides substantial relief to SMEs and claimants by establishing that financial solvency can be demonstrated through robust insurance rather than solely relying on bank guarantees.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of appeals in a dispute between Samsung Bioepis and Alexion Pharmaceuticals regarding EP 3 167 888. The case, which had previously involved provisional measures and cost disputes, was ultimately closed when both parties agreed to withdraw their respective applications for leave to appeal. The court confirmed that consent from the opposing party negates any legitimate interest in the continuation of the proceedings.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
This Court of Appeal decision addressed an application by Sanofi and Regeneron seeking suspensive effect on a ruling that rejected their request for patent revocation. The court ruled against the applicants, emphasizing that applications for rehearing do not inherently possess suspensive effect under UPC rules. The decision underscores the high threshold required to suspend proceedings based on procedural defects in the UPC.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-Link Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-Link Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal regarding the public access to confidential documents submitted in underlying infringement and revocation proceedings involving Huawei and TP-Link. The court ultimately rejected Huawei's attempt to block document disclosure, upholding the initial order that allowed TP-Link limited access to redacted versions of the files. This ruling reinforces the balance between the public right of access under the EPC and the need to protect sensitive commercial information in UPC litigation.
bioMérieux UK Limited, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural applications concerning a patent dispute involving bioMérieux and Labrador Diagnostics. The Appellants sought to stay the proceedings based on pending EPO opposition actions and requested an extension of their appeal deadline to align with potential infringement appeals. The court firmly rejected both requests, reiterating the principle that extensions must be exceptional and noting that existing UPC rules provide efficient mechanisms for aligning parallel proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This UPC appellate decision involved a complex interplay between patent infringement and revocation proceedings. Although the respondent successfully argued for the invalidity of EP 2 548 648, leading to the dismissal of the infringement claim, the court still awarded the claimant a lump-sum damages payment of €20,000. The ruling also provided important procedural guidance on when an appellate court must render a final judgment in both revocation and infringement cases following an appeal.
Valeo Systemes D’essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS et autres (ROBERT BOSCH GROUP)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of an appeal against a preliminary order issued by the Trial Division Judge-Rapporteur. The case, involving Valeo and Robert Bosch concerning EP 2671766, centered on whether the specific type of procedural ruling fell under the scope of appeal defined in the UPC Agreement (AJUB). The Court ultimately ruled that the appeal was admissible, providing important guidance on how parties can challenge non-final, preliminary orders within the UPC framework.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.European Patent Office (EPO)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict interpretation of unitary patent effect under Regulation 1257/2012. Papst Licensing challenged the EPO's rejection of their request for unitary effect, arguing that historical context and proportionality should allow registration despite the omission of Malta in the original designation. The court firmly rejected this argument, emphasizing a literal reading of Article 3(1). This ruling reinforces the mandatory nature of procedural requirements when seeking unitary protection.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises related to network security technology. Centripetal Limited, the patent holder, appealed a rejection of its Saisie Order against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. The court ultimately rejected the appeal, finding that Centripetal had failed to meet procedural requirements regarding the defense and amendment of the original order. This case highlights the strict procedural standards required when seeking interim measures like evidence preservation within the UPC framework.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This appeal court decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the release of security deposits in an ongoing patent dispute. Following a settlement agreement between Oerlikon and Bhagat regarding litigation costs, the Court of Appeal granted Oerlikon's request to have the €19,000 deposit released from Bhagat and transferred directly to Oerlikon's account. The ruling underscores the UPC's focus on procedural finality and facilitating amicable resolutions between parties.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural request for discretionary review filed by the defendants (Alpinestars) against an order from the Local Division. The core issue was whether the appeal remained necessary after the Local Division subsequently amended its original ruling to grant leave to appeal. The Court ruled that since the first instance proceedings evolved and rendered the appeal obsolete, the request could be withdrawn. This case highlights the dynamic nature of UPC litigation and how procedural developments can impact appellate remedies.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for confidentiality concerning information exchanged during infringement litigation. The court ruled that once a party provides information without restriction under a court order, the recipient loses the basis to restrict its use. This clarifies the scope of confidentiality protections in the UPC, emphasizing that specific requests (R. 262A RoP) are needed when disclosure is mandated by the court.
Applicant v.Registrar of the UPC
This decision addresses a petition for review concerning the eligibility of an applicant to be listed as a representative before the UPC. The core dispute centered on whether a one-year time limit in Rule 12.1 EPLC Rules constituted discrimination against European Patent Attorneys who obtained specific qualifications outside that window. The Court of Appeal upheld the Registrar's decision, ruling that the transitional period was necessary and not discriminatory, thereby reinforcing the strict application of qualification rules for UPC representation.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the protection of confidential information in patent litigation, specifically concerning Standard Essential Patent (SEP) licensing agreements. The court established a tailored confidentiality regime that balances the need for secrecy with the parties' right to a fair trial. A key takeaway is the nuanced approach to access rights, recognizing the necessity of employee involvement while mitigating potential harm through specific contractual restrictions on negotiations.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of confidentiality in patent litigation, specifically within a FRAND licensing context. The court provided extensive guidance on balancing the protection of sensitive information with the fundamental rights to an effective remedy and fair trial for the parties. Key takeaways include allowing access for party employees and mitigating risks through measures like barring involvement in negotiations.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Viatris Santé
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for maintaining confidentiality in proceedings. The court ruled that merely requesting confidentiality under R. 262.2 RoP is insufficient to restrict disclosure by opposing parties; a formal application under R. 262A RoP must be made simultaneously with lodging confidential evidence. This ruling emphasizes that unrestricted access is the default, and procedural compliance is mandatory for any restriction.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope and proportionality of confidentiality measures in complex patent litigation involving FRAND licensing. The court ruled on access rights for internal staff, affirming that employees are generally essential for a party's effective representation, even if it slightly compromises strict confidentiality regimes. Crucially, the ruling also provided a mechanism to protect third parties by imposing temporary bars on negotiations when confidential license data is involved.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the protection of confidential information in complex SEP litigation involving Ericsson and ASUS. The court meticulously crafted a confidentiality regime for sensitive license agreements, balancing the need to protect trade secrets against the parties' fundamental rights to a fair trial. A key innovation was the imposition of a five-year non-negotiation bar on party employees who gain access to these confidential licensing details, providing robust protection while maintaining procedural fairness.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH S.A; ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A; ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD; BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE appealed a decision from the UPC Central Division (Paris) concerning an infringement action against various Robert Bosch entities regarding patent EP 2671766. The appeal challenges the jurisdiction and procedural language set by the initial division. This Order of Procedure confirms that the Court of Appeal will first assess the admissibility of VALEO's appeal before examining its merits, a standard procedure for managing complex UPC litigation. This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to appellate procedures within the Unified Patent Court framework.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect filed by a defendant against a preliminary injunction and interim damage award issued by the Court of First Instance. The Applicant sought to halt the enforcement of the CFI's orders, arguing that certain actions (like website publication) were irreversible and that the financial impact was severe. However, the Court rejected the request, emphasizing that an appeal must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to override the general rule against suspensive effect.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, Juul Labs successfully sought permission to withdraw its appeal against a revocation judgment. The court granted the withdrawal based on the consent of the opposing party, NJOY. While Juul Labs received a 60% refund of its court fees, it was ultimately ordered to cover the legal costs incurred by NJOY during the appeal process. This case highlights the procedural requirements for withdrawing appeals and the general rule regarding cost allocation in UPC litigation.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal against the revocation of EP 3 498 115. This was possible because the opposing party, NJOY Netherlands B.V., consented to the withdrawal. While the proceedings were closed, the court upheld the general principle that the withdrawing appellant is considered unsuccessful and must cover the costs incurred by the successful party (NJOY) for the appeal stage.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application to withdraw an appeal in a patent revocation case involving vaping technology. The court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal after NJOY consented, closing the appellate proceedings. Despite allowing the withdrawal, the court applied standard cost rules, ruling that Juul Labs, as the appellant who withdrew, was ultimately unsuccessful and must cover NJOY's legal costs for the appeal.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court permitted the withdrawal of an appeal filed by VMR Products LLC against a partial revocation ruling. The key factor enabling the withdrawal was the consent of NJOY Netherlands B.V., which negated any claim that NJOY had a legitimate interest in the ongoing litigation. While the appeal was withdrawn, the Court upheld the general principle that the unsuccessful party (the appellant) must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Angelalign Technology Inc. v.Align Technology, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning procedural matters in provisional measures proceedings. Angelalign sought to overturn an earlier order from the Court of First Instance that disregarded its non-infringement arguments. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing strict requirements for challenging lower court decisions. Practitioners should note that simply stating that evidence was excluded is insufficient; applicants must clearly articulate why the exclusion constitutes a manifest error.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal against a revocation action concerning EP 3 456 214, a patent covering vaporizer technology. The court confirmed the initial finding that several claims lacked inventive step due to anticipation by prior art (Pan). Furthermore, the judgment provided important procedural guidance on how parties must manage new evidence and arguments when responding to applications to amend under the UPC's strict front-loaded system. This case is significant for practitioners navigating complex revocation proceedings in the unified patent court.
Amazon.com, Inc. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
In a significant ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal denied Amazon's application for suspensive effect against an earlier Local Division Mannheim order. The dispute centered on whether the existing order, which restricted Amazon's actions regarding patent infringement proceedings in the UK, posed an imminent and irreversible threat to Amazon's interests. The court determined that while Amazon argued potential penalty risks, it failed to meet the high threshold required to justify suspending the original decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application for leave to appeal against a cost determination in a prior infringement action involving Microsoft and Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. The court upheld the CFI's award of EUR 350,000.00 in costs to Microsoft. The ruling emphasizes the strict proportionality requirements under Article 69(1) UPCA when reviewing cost assessments.
Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of an application for rehearing related to EP 2 152 073. Both parties, Sumi Agro and Syngenta, jointly requested the withdrawal, leading the court to permit it under R. 265.1 RoP. While the core dispute was dropped, the Court provided clear guidance on procedural matters, specifically confirming that joint requests for withdrawal waive the need for a cost decision but do not automatically allow for fee waivers.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Lindal Dispenser GmbH against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning patent EP 3 655 346. Both parties agreed to close the proceedings, and the court granted the request for reimbursement of court fees. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties reach a mutual agreement to terminate litigation.
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.