Luxembourg (LU)
353 cases · page 3 of 12
Showing 61–89Insulet Corporation v.EOFLow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for access to written pleadings and evidence. The court balanced the general interest in public access against concerns regarding confidentiality, personal data protection (GDPR), and copyright. Ultimately, limited access was granted to the law firm representing one party, provided all personal data was redacted.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
This entry represents a case file involving UERAN Technology LLC against Xiaomi Corporation. However, the provided text is merely an excerpt showing the signatures and dates of the involved parties' counsel and judges/participants. Consequently, no substantive information regarding the infringement claims, patent scope, or final judgment can be determined from this snippet.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd
This UPC appellate decision clarifies the strict application of Article 69(4) EPC regarding cost security. The court ruled that in appeal proceedings, only the appellant is considered the applicant for costs purposes. Consequently, Grundfos (the appellee/claimant in this specific context) was permitted to request security against Hefei (the appellant/respondent). This ruling reinforces the principle that cost security measures are designed to protect the party initiating the legal action from potential non-payment.
Docket Navigator v.Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited; Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by the litigation intelligence platform, Docket Navigator, seeking access to confidential written pleadings and evidence in an concluded case. The court ruled that the commercial interest of making these documents available to subscribers does not meet the threshold for protection under Article 45 UPCA. Furthermore, the requirement for representation was deemed essential to safeguard procedural integrity. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining judicial confidentiality unless a legitimate public interest is demonstrated.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural appeal concerning the admissibility of exhibits and submissions during infringement proceedings related to a pharmaceutical SPC. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that it had become devoid of purpose because the underlying matter—the provisional measures application—had already been decided in favor of the appellant (Viatris). This highlights the importance of assessing legal interest when determining whether an action warrants adjudication under UPC rules.
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 Board of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding document access in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings involving Huawei and TP-Link concerning patent EP 3 678 321. TP-Link sought access to confidential documents, which the Local Division partially granted with a deadline. Huawei appealed this order, arguing against the disclosure. The Board of Appeal ultimately granted suspensive effect to Huawei's appeal, effectively halting the document disclosure until further review.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a claim for damages and costs arising from patent infringement concerning textile machinery. The court confirmed that while the respondent was liable for infringement, it rejected the claimant's request for provisional damages based on reputational harm due to insufficient evidence. The ruling highlights the strict evidentiary requirements needed to prove non-economic damages in UPC proceedings.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed Windhager's request to stay the execution of a judgment issued by the Local Division in an infringement case against bellissa HAAS GmbH. Although Windhager had raised revocation defenses, the court found insufficient grounds to grant the stay. The ruling reinforces the high threshold required for obtaining a stay of execution under UPC rules, emphasizing that mere allegations of error are not enough.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, Realme Germany GmbH, Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V., OTECH Italia S.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Innovative Sonic Corporation and OPPO et al. The appeal sought to overturn the initial decision to switch from German to English, arguing that this change created undue costs for the claimant. However, the Court upheld the original order, finding that English was the common working language across the parties' global operations and technology field. This ruling reinforces the court's discretion in prioritizing fairness based on practical factors like industry language and party domicile.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision focused heavily on procedural aspects within an application for provisional measures concerning patent EP 3 732 827. The parties, Barco N.V. and Yealink, contested the competence of the local division and the initial costs order. While the core infringement dispute was not decided, the Court provided clear guidance on divisional competence under Art. 33 UPCA and established a precedent for interim cost awards in provisional measures cases. The ruling is significant for practitioners as it clarifies how courts should approach jurisdictional challenges and the practical application of interim relief mechanisms within the UPC framework.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for provisional measures, focusing heavily on procedural issues such as competence and the awarding of interim costs. The court clarified that internal division competence within the UPC is distinct from EU regulations like Brussels I Recast. Crucially, it established a practical guideline for interim cost awards in these urgent proceedings, setting a precedent for how parties can recover expenses pending final decisions.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party intervenor (Streithelfer) when the main party withdraws their appeal. The case involved Strabag and Swarco, with Chainzone intervening to support Strabag's position regarding patent EP 2 643 717. When Strabag settled out of court and withdrew its appeal, the UPC ruled that Chainzone’s intervention became legally moot. This decision clarifies strict rules governing third-party involvement in appellate proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co, Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Vivo to stay the ongoing infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance (CFI). Vivo argued that an unprecedented jurisdictional question regarding active FRAND rate determination needed clarification before proceeding. The Court ultimately rejected this request, holding that VIVO did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances required under R. 21.2 RoP. This ruling reinforces the principle that main proceedings generally must continue unless truly extraordinary factors are present.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party assisting party (Streithelfer) when the main supported party withdraws their appeal. Chainzone, acting as an assistant to Strabag, sought to continue its own infringement appeal against Swarco. However, because Strabag reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew its appeal, the court ruled that Chainzone's independent legal standing was lost. Consequently, Chainzone's appeal was dismissed without subject matter.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
In a significant decision concerning patent validity in the pharmaceutical sector, the UPC Court of Appeal upheld the patent against revocation challenges brought by Sanofi. The ruling not only rejected the requests to invalidate but also established important legal precedents regarding claim interpretation and inventive step assessment within the Unified Patent Court. This case reinforces the rigorous standards for patentability while providing clarity on how therapeutic claims must be interpreted.
Amgen Inc. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
In a significant decision concerning patent validity in the pharmaceutical sector, the UPC Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Amgen against Regeneron. The court successfully defended the patent by affirming that the claims met the requirements for inventive step and sufficiency. Furthermore, the ruling provided detailed guidance on interpreting medical use claims, emphasizing that therapeutic efficacy is an inherent feature of such claims, not a matter to be proven solely from the claim text.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against a cost award granted in favor of Microsoft Corporation. The original dispute involved an infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173, which was ultimately dismissed by default. Although the costs were substantial (€350k), the Court of Appeal ruled that Suinno failed to meet the high threshold required to suspend enforcement of the cost decision. This reinforces the principle that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are proven.
STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
In a significant decision regarding claim construction, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected an application for provisional measures concerning an electropolishing medium. The dispute hinged on whether a specific emulsion met the patent's requirement for a 'non-conductive fluid.' The court ruled that by analyzing the surrounding liquid as a whole, the conductivity exceeded the claimed limit, thus finding no infringement. This case underscores the critical importance of precise claim interpretation when dealing with complex chemical formulations like emulsions in UPC litigation.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v.Occlutech GmbH
In a critical decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect against an injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division. The court emphasized that exceptions to the rule requiring manifest error are narrowly applied. This ruling reinforces the principle that patentees can secure immediate protection against infringement unless the appellant meets a high burden of proof.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. to suspend the enforcement of a CFI-ordered information disclosure mandate from HL Display AB. The core dispute centered on whether the confidential business information requested (such as origin, distribution channels, and profits) should be withheld pending appeal. The Court ultimately rejected the suspension request, affirming that while confidentiality is important, it does not automatically negate the need for the patent proprietor to gather evidence necessary for damage calculation.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent (EP 3 223 320). The central dispute revolved around whether the patent claims represented an impermissible expansion beyond the disclosure in the original international application. While the court discussed principles regarding translation and scope, it ultimately dismissed the appeal. This outcome is significant as it reinforces the validity of patents even when challenges based on improper claim drafting or scope extension are raised.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent, focusing heavily on the interpretation of prior art and the scope of claims. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim did not impermissibly extend beyond the content of the earlier application. This ruling reinforces strict standards for interpreting disclosures in patent applications, particularly when dealing with translations of international filings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a request by VIVO to stay the main infringement proceedings and grant an extension of time limits in light of pending appeals regarding confidentiality orders and jurisdictional challenges (PO). The Court of Appeal ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure. The ruling reinforces that specialized provisions like R. 21.2 RoP are narrowly construed and that procedural management requests must generally be directed to the Court of First Instance.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a request by VIVO to stay the main infringement proceedings and extend deadlines in light of pending appeals concerning confidentiality orders and jurisdictional challenges (FRAND determination). The Court of Appeal firmly rejected this request. The ruling reinforces the hierarchical nature of UPC procedure, clarifying that requests for staying or extending time limits must generally be handled by the Court of First Instance, not the Court of Appeal, unless truly exceptional circumstances are proven.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a cost guarantee in an ongoing infringement appeal case involving textile technology. The court ruled that while the respondent's argument to exclude previously awarded first-instance costs was rejected, it set a specific financial requirement. Bhagat Textile Engineers must provide a €19,000 guarantee to Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG to proceed with the appeal.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for implementing penalty clauses under the Rules of Procedure. The case involved an appeal concerning cost decisions related to non-compliance penalties set by a Local Division panel. The court reinforced that penalty orders must be explicitly stated in the operative part of a decision, not just mentioned in the grounds. This ruling provides crucial guidance for practitioners on how to structure and enforce compliance obligations within UPC proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.Roku Inc.
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against infringement proceedings initiated by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. Roku argued that the EPC's structure violated fundamental EU rights, particularly concerning judicial independence and jurisdiction. The Court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that jurisdictional challenges must adhere strictly to the enumerated grounds in the Rules of Procedure. The ruling reinforces the established legal framework governing the UPC's competence and administrative flexibility.
Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against the rejection of its opposition filings. Roku had argued that the UPC's structure and jurisdiction violated fundamental EU rights, specifically concerning judicial independence and the competence allocation under the EPC. The court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that all grounds for opposition must be within the scope defined by Rule 19.1 VerfO. The ruling reinforces the established legal framework of the UPC regarding its jurisdictional powers and administrative flexibility.
Dolby International AB v.Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. Roku argued that the UPC's jurisdiction violated fundamental EU rights and challenged the court's organizational structure. The Court firmly dismissed these arguments, clarifying that jurisdictional objections must adhere to specific grounds under the Rules of Procedure. The ruling also affirmed the Administrative Committee's authority to adapt the UPC's structure as necessary.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the patent and ordered Belkin to recall, remove, and destroy infringing products. Crucially, the ruling provided significant legal guidance on interpreting 'offering' in commercial contexts and defined the specific conditions under which company directors can be held liable for patent infringement.
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.