Luxembourg (LU)
353 cases · page 5 of 12
Showing 121–149HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
In a significant case involving HPDC and LAMA, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed simultaneous requests to withdraw claims in an ongoing infringement and revocation dispute. Following mutual agreements and the absence of final judgments, the court granted both parties' withdrawals. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing cases to be closed amicably before a definitive ruling is reached.
Hanshow Germany GmbH v.VusionGroup SA
In a decision concerning the revocation action against EP 3 883 277, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Hanshow Germany GmbH's request to withdraw its appeal. Since VusionGroup SA did not object and no final judgment had been reached, the procedure was closed. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to terminate proceedings amicably while ensuring cost recovery for the withdrawing party.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V. and Easee Holding B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an infringement appeal following an out-of-court settlement between Visibly Inc. and Easee B.V. The court formally permitted the withdrawal, declaring the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling clarified the procedural implications of such a withdrawal, specifically addressing the reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.9 RoP. This case serves as an important reminder for practitioners that settlement can lead to formal closure and fee recovery within the UPC framework.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion regarding cost determination following an earlier ruling. Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a specific cost allocation, but subsequently withdrew its application due to an administrative error. The court accepted this withdrawal, effectively closing the costs procedure without altering the underlying substantive dispute or the initial cost split.
TIRU SAS v.MAGUIN SAS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an appeal challenging an initial ex parte order for evidence preservation concerning a waste incineration patent (EP 3 178 578). The court provided important guidance on the scope of judicial review during evidence gathering, emphasizing that judges ordering evidence do not need to assess patent validity or require disclosure of all known prior art. Ultimately, the appeal by MAGUIN was rejected as they failed to meet the burden of proving why their specific prior art should have been disclosed.
TIRU SAS v.VALINEA ENERGIE SASU
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an appeal concerning the scope and necessity of evidence preservation measures ordered against a defendant (VALINEA). The court provided important guidance on the distinction between provisional measures and evidence preservation requests, confirming that validity assessment is not required at the latter stage. Crucially, it ruled that mere knowledge of potential prior art does not automatically obligate disclosure during the initial request phase, setting clear boundaries for procedural conduct in UPC litigation.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The provided text is merely a header and signature block from a UPC case involving Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy versus Microsoft Corporation. No substantive legal findings or outcomes are present in this excerpt. Further documentation would be required to provide an analysis of the dispute's significance for patent practitioners.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This case involves Microsoft Corporation versus Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy within the UPC framework. However, the provided snippet is merely a signature page and lacks any substantive details regarding the legal dispute or decision. Therefore, no meaningful analysis of the case's significance can be made at this time.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed OTEC's request to suspend the effect of an injunction granted by the Court of First Instance against Steros. OTEC sought suspension based on alleged manifest errors and violations of its right to be heard in the initial proceedings. The Court ultimately rejected this application, affirming that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are met. This ruling reinforces the high threshold required for parties seeking to halt enforcement measures while their appeal is pending.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of an appeal against a security for costs order. Chint appealed the Local Division's ruling, arguing that the order was legally flawed. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal entirely, not on the merits of the security requirement itself, but because the initial case management order did not meet the procedural requirements for appeal under UPC rules. This reinforces strict adherence to internal appellate procedures within the UPC.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an infringement action concerning solar cell technology. The court ultimately granted the application, requiring the claimant (JingAo) to provide a deposit of € 200,000. The ruling emphasizes that while enforcement difficulties exist in non-EU jurisdictions like China, these do not automatically defeat the need for security; rather, the applicant must demonstrate legitimate concerns regarding enforceability.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a dispute over the scope of access to confidential information in ongoing infringement proceedings. Network System Technologies (NST) sought broader access for its US attorneys, arguing their technical expertise was vital. Qualcomm opposed this request, citing the need to protect sensitive data. The court ultimately sided with Qualcomm, emphasizing that access must be strictly limited and found that NST's existing team structure provided adequate representation without requiring additional attorney access.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural requirements surrounding appeals in revocation actions. It clarifies that a separate court fee is due for an appeal against the main revocation action and any counterclaim for revocation, regardless of how the CFI combines its decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal fees to both parties following the mutual withdrawal of the underlying actions, setting important precedents on procedural costs.
Appellant v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request to withdraw an appeal concerning patent infringement proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal because the respondent did not object, thereby concluding the appellate phase. Crucially, while the appellant lost the procedural battle and must cover the costs incurred by the respondent, the specific monetary claim for damages was rejected, mandating that cost determination proceed via a separate procedure.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following a settlement in a revocation action. Tandem Diabetes, which had appealed a dismissal by the Central Division Paris, successfully applied for a refund of 60% of its appeal costs. The ruling confirms that if an action is settled before the written procedure concludes, the party responsible for the initial costs is entitled to this partial reimbursement under UPC Rules of Procedure.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural aspects of a revocation action and its associated counterclaim for revocation. The parties mutually agreed to withdraw both actions, leading to the closure of the proceedings. Crucially, the court clarified that appeals against these two distinct actions require separate court fees, regardless of how the CFI combined the decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal costs based on specific procedural rules.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH, SSAB Europe Oy
This UPC appellate decision addressed an appeal concerning the allocation of legal costs following the withdrawal of a provisional measures application. The court confirmed that even when a case is closed by withdrawal under R. 265 VerfO, the general rules for separate cost determination (R. 150 ff. VerfO) apply. The appellate panel found no grounds to overturn the initial costs decision, which had already conducted a thorough and reasonable assessment of the incurred expenses.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect in a complex infringement and revocation case. The core issue was the appeal against a CFI order requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs. Given that the main proceedings had been stayed due to the insolvency of the Easee companies, the Court found that continuing the appeals served no purpose. This ruling emphasizes the practical application of procedural rules when external events, such as corporate insolvency, impact ongoing litigation in the UPC.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a case concerning security for costs and the disposal of an action that has become devoid of purpose. The claimant, Ballinno B.V., initially sought provisional measures related to patent EP 1 944 067 but subsequently withdrew these requests on appeal. Consequently, the court disposed of the action while rejecting Ballinno's request to set aside the security for costs. This ruling reinforces procedural principles regarding case abandonment and cost allocation in UPC litigation.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Easee Holding B.V., and managing director
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect related to a security for costs order issued by the CFI in an infringement action. The court found that the initial order contained manifest errors, specifically regarding the legal basis for requiring security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA. By granting suspensive effect to both Easee's appeals, the UPC ensured that the status quo would be maintained pending a full review of the underlying issues.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision confirmed a settlement reached between Plant-e and Arkyne regarding the infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 137 782. While the core dispute was settled, the Court issued a significant ruling on procedural matters, specifically granting Arkyne a reimbursement of 60% of its court fees. This case highlights the practical application of UPC rules governing settlements and fee refunds.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited; Sumi Agro Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarified a critical procedural point regarding the timing of court fee payments. The case involved an appeal by Sumi Agro challenging the revocation of provisional measures granted to Syngenta, which hinged on whether Sumi Agro had failed to start infringement proceedings within the stipulated timeframe. The Court ruled that the date fees are ordered to be transferred is decisive for timely payment, not necessarily the date they are received by the Court's bank account. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners navigating UPC procedural deadlines, especially in international contexts where transfer times can vary.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope of security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA. The court ruled that a claimant cannot request security for costs in an infringement action, even if they subsequently file a counterclaim for revocation. The core reasoning is that the purpose of security for costs—protecting a defendant from an insolvent initiating party—does not apply when the defense (revocation counterclaim) is merely a necessary response to the initial claim.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a rehearing based on alleged fundamental procedural defects in a prior ruling. Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought to reopen proceedings concerning its patent EP 3 167 888, arguing that the court applied new standards without proper notice. The Court ultimately rejected the application, clarifying that a rehearing is an extraordinary remedy reserved only for truly fundamental flaws, not mere errors of legal reasoning or disagreement with the outcome.
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.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a rehearing filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals against Amgen, challenging an earlier ruling. The court clarified the extremely narrow scope of Art. 81(1) UPCA, emphasizing that a rehearing is not a regular appeal mechanism. The court ruled that procedural errors must be 'fundamental'—so severe they are intolerable to the legal system and would have prevented the decision from being reached—and rejected Alexion’s application.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC appellate case involved ILME appealing a rejection of its opposition against an infringement suit brought by PHOENIX regarding EP 3 602 692. However, before the appeal could be decided on merits, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to the withdrawal and termination of the original infringement proceedings. The UPC Appeals Board subsequently dismissed ILME's appeal under Rule 360 because the underlying dispute had become moot.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge ('Gegenvorstellung') brought by Knaus Tabbert against the Appeal Court's rejection of its request for interim relief. The court ruled that such a counter-submission is inadmissible if it only disputes the reasoning of the rejecting order, not the merits itself. This ruling reinforces strict procedural boundaries within the UPC system regarding appeals and motions for provisional measures.
Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd. v.VusionGroup SA
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute concerning the timely filing and recovery of costs in patent litigation. The appellant (Hanshow) sought an extension for its cost claim related to the appeal proceedings against VusionGroup. The court strictly upheld the procedural requirements, ruling that extensions are not available for missed deadlines under R. 151 VerfO. This decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to UPC timelines and clarifies the scope of costs recovery in summary cost proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect filed by NUC Electronics against a judgment ordering it to disclose confidential business information regarding the origin and distribution of its products. The court ruled that the disclosure obligation is necessary for effective IP enforcement under EU directives. Consequently, NUC's request to suspend the appeal was dismissed, meaning the original order compelling information disclosure remains in force.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes Care appealed a decision from the Central Division Paris regarding the revocation of EP 2 196 231, which covered an ambulatory drug infusion system. Before the Court of Appeal could rule on the appeal, both parties reached a settlement agreement. The UPC Court of Appeal subsequently confirmed this settlement, formally terminating all proceedings related to the patent.
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.