Luxembourg (LU)
353 cases · page 6 of 12
Showing 151–179Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the mandatory procedural requirements for imposing periodic penalty payments under R. 354.4 RoP. The court ruled that such an intrusive measure must be decided by a panel, not a single judge. Consequently, the appeal was successful, leading to the setting aside of the initial order and referral back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses complex jurisdictional questions regarding the temporal scope of the UPCA Agreement, specifically concerning acts occurring before its entry into force or during a patent's opt-out period. The court affirmed that the UPC possesses competence over these historical infringement acts, provided the action is lodged while the patent is under exclusive jurisdiction. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners navigating transitional periods and opting out of the UPC system.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a penalty payment case stemming from an initial disclosure order in an infringement action involving Philips and Belkin regarding patent EP 2 867 997. The court confirmed the validity of imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance, even if compliance is eventually achieved late. Crucially, it reinforced the obligation to disclose manufacturer prices under Art. 67 EPC, providing clear guidance on procedural enforcement and disclosure requirements in UPC litigation.
CENTRIPETAL LIMITED v.PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the delicate balance required when granting orders for preserving evidence and inspecting premises. The court clarified that while the standard of proof is lower in these summary proceedings than in a full infringement action, applicants must demonstrate plausibility rather than mere speculation to prevent 'fishing expeditions.' Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes that any such measures must be necessary for effective patent enforcement while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had initially sought revocation of EP 2 794 928 against Harvard, which was subsequently revoked by the CFI. When Harvard appealed and later withdrew the appeal, the dispute shifted to fee reimbursement under UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP). The Court ruled that because the withdrawal occurred after the written procedure closed but before the interim procedure ended, Harvard qualified for a 40% refund rather than the maximum 60%.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In this appeal case, NanoString Technologies sought to withdraw its revocation action against Harvard University concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, noting that Harvard had not demonstrated a legitimate interest in continuing the proceedings after being given an opportunity to respond. This decision effectively closed the legal dispute and resulted in the release of NanoString's security deposit.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision concerns an application by Chainzone Technology to suspend the effect of a judgment against it, which had found it liable for patent infringement. The appeal was filed following a local court ruling that largely favored Swarco, the patent holder. The Board ultimately rejected Chainzone's request for suspension, citing insufficient substantiation in its legal arguments regarding the interpretation of the patent claim.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter where NJOY Netherlands B.V. sought to withdraw an appeal against Juul Labs International Inc. The underlying action was a revocation suit brought before the CFI, which had previously dismissed it. Given that both parties consented to the withdrawal, the CoA permitted the closure of the proceedings. This case highlights the importance of party consent in procedural matters under the UPC Rules of Procedure.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses an application for interim relief concerning patent infringement. The court ruled that the requirement for a security deposit to ensure enforcement is not automatic and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the lower court. The ruling emphasizes that parties should raise all relevant facts, including financial vulnerabilities, during the initial proceedings rather than relying solely on them in an appeal.
Jingao Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect and expedition filed by Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. against Jingao Solar Co., Ltd. The appeal concerned a security for costs order issued by the Court of First Instance in the main infringement/revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 787 541. The Court ultimately rejected Chint's request, upholding the original timeline and requiring Chint to provide the stipulated security.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH; Hisense Europe Holding GmbH; TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG.; TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH; TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o; TCL Belgium, SA; LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH; LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V; LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning the separation of infringement proceedings based on concerns over confidential supply chain information. The defendants (Hisense, TCL, LG) argued that sharing sensitive data among competing entities would violate EU competition law and impair their right to be heard. However, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that procedural economy outweighs the need for separation. It clarified that confidentiality can be protected through existing rules of procedure (R. 262A RoP) and internal party arrangements.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical procedural issue of an action becoming 'devoid of purpose' when a claimant withdraws its urgent requests for provisional measures. The case involved Ballinno B.V., patent holder, and UEFA/Kinexon companies regarding offside detection technology. The court clarified that claimants who take the inherent risk of basing their strategy on temporary events must accept the consequence of bearing costs if the interest expires before a final ruling.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural matters in an appeal concerning penalty payments related to EP 4 238 202. The parties, despite being Danish companies represented by Danish counsel, mutually agreed to change the language of the limited-scope proceedings from Danish to English. The court granted this request, finding it convenient and fair for a quicker adjudication process. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC in adapting procedural rules based on party consent.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent 1 (Helsingborg)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural issues concerning public access to court documents and representation requirements. The court ruled that an individual holding a high-level management position cannot simultaneously act as their own representative in UPC proceedings, emphasizing due process. Additionally, the ruling clarified that cost compensation is generally not available for requests made under R. 262.1(b) RoP regarding public access to the register.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural matters, specifically the requirements for representation and public access to court documents. The court ruled that an individual holding a high-level management position cannot represent their company in UPC proceedings, emphasizing due process considerations. Additionally, the ruling clarifies that applications seeking access to the register generally do not qualify for cost compensation under the UPC rules. This decision is significant for practitioners as it reinforces strict procedural requirements regarding representation and sets clear boundaries on recoverable costs related to public disclosure requests.
Meril GmbH v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent 1 (Helsingborg)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues, specifically concerning public access to the register and the rules governing representation in court. The court established that an individual holding a high-level management position within a party cannot simultaneously act as their authorized representative before the UPC. Additionally, it firmly ruled against awarding compensation for costs related to requests for public access to pleadings, setting clear boundaries on procedural expenses.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for provisional measures in an infringement case involving insulin pump technology. Insulet sought disclosure and injunctions against EOFlow regarding the alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327. While settlement discussions occurred, the court issued a detailed order setting out specific requests, including mandatory disclosure of origin and distribution channels from EOFlow, backed by significant periodic penalty payments for non-compliance. The ruling reinforces core legal principles governing claim construction and cost allocation within the UPC framework.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
In a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990, the UPC Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs. This decision was based on the accelerated timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. The ruling highlights the practical mechanism for coordinating litigation between the UPC and national/EPO bodies when decisions are expected rapidly.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court granted a stay of revocation proceedings following an appeal by Juul Labs against a prior finding. The request was based on parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal which had been accelerated. Given that the EPO proceedings were expected to conclude rapidly relative to the scheduled UPC hearing, the court ruled in favor of granting the stay, allowing both parties to await the final outcome at the EPO.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this appeal action for revocation, the UPC Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings upon request by Juul Labs International, Inc., pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO Boards of Appeal. The court determined that since the EPO proceedings were accelerated and expected to conclude rapidly relative to the UPC's hearing schedule, staying the appeal was appropriate under R. 295(a) RoP. This decision highlights the practical mechanism for managing concurrent litigation between the Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Office.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict rules governing access to written pleadings and evidence in ongoing proceedings. The court ruled that while blanket requests are inadmissible, immediate access can be granted if a member of the public demonstrates a direct interest in the patent's validity—as Nicoventures did due to its prior opposition efforts. Crucially, this access is conditional, preventing the recipient from filing or distributing the documents with other judicial instances like the EPO Boards of Appeal until the UPC appeal concludes.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Juul Labs International Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for access to written pleadings and evidence in parallel proceedings concerning patent validity. The court granted immediate access to specific documents requested by Nicoventures, recognizing its direct interest as an opponent in the EPO. However, this access was strictly conditioned: Nicoventures could not file or distribute these materials with other courts, like the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the UPC appeal concluded. This ruling highlights the Court's power to balance transparency with procedural integrity.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope and conditions for public access to written pleadings in UPC proceedings, specifically concerning a party's interest in parallel EPO appeal proceedings. The court granted immediate access to specific documents requested by Nicoventures Trading Limited, recognizing its direct stake in the patent's validity. Crucially, this access was conditioned on Nicoventures agreeing not to file or distribute these materials with other courts, such as the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the UPC case is finalized.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against a preliminary procedural order issued in the main infringement case involving Amazon. The core issue was whether the appeal remained viable after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently withdrew the original patent infringement claim. The court determined that because the underlying dispute had been resolved, the appeal itself became moot. This ruling reinforces the principle of procedural efficiency within the UPC system, confirming that appeals must be dismissed when the subject matter they address is no longer legally relevant.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed Meril's application for suspensive effect against a preliminary infringement judgment issued by the Munich Local Division. Edwards, the patent holder, had secured an injunction prohibiting the sale and use of specific prosthetic heart valve systems. Meril argued that the initial decision was erroneous and requested a stay of enforcement. The Court ultimately rejected this request, affirming the principle that UPC decisions are generally enforceable while appeals are pending.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request by Scandit AG seeking reimbursement of court fees after withdrawing its action against Hand Held Products, Inc. The core issue was determining the precise moment the 'oral proceedings' concluded under the relevant Rules of Procedure. The Court clarified that for appeal proceedings, the oral phase ends upon the conclusion of the hearing itself, not when the final judgment is rendered. The court consequently denied Scandit's request for a 20% refund, as the withdrawal was deemed to have occurred after the formal end of the oral proceedings. This ruling provides important clarity on procedural deadlines and definitions within the UPC framework.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Kodak against a judgment issued by the Court of First Instance in an infringement case brought by Fujifilm. The court ruled that the appeal did not have suspensive effect, rejecting Kodak's request to halt the enforcement of the initial judgment. The ruling emphasized that while appeals can be challenged, the appellant must demonstrate manifest errors in the lower court's decision, which Kodak failed to do.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning a cost order issued by the CFI in provisional measures proceedings. Barco N.V., the appellant, sought to suspend the enforcement of a €112,000 cost award against it. The Court ultimately rejected this request, upholding the principle that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are met. This case reinforces the strict application of procedural rules regarding the suspension of judicial decisions within the UPC framework.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED, Novartis AG, ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope of public access to court documents, specifically written pleadings and evidence. Stadapharm appealed a lower court's denial of access to documents from a withdrawn main infringement proceeding. The Court ultimately granted access, emphasizing that once proceedings are concluded and parties consent or do not object, the general interest in public access prevails. This ruling provides clarity on how confidentiality concerns must be balanced against transparency requirements within the UPC framework.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy, TGI Sport Virtual Limited, Supponor SASU, TGI Sport Italia S.r.l., Supponor España SL (jointly referred to as TGI)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural motions concerning the amendment of claims and the addition of a defendant in an infringement action. The court upheld the Local Division's decision to allow AIM Sport Development AG to amend its claim and add TGI UK as a party, despite objections from the defendants (TGI). The ruling emphasizes the balance between claimant's needs for comprehensive relief and procedural efficiency, confirming that such amendments are permissible if they do not unduly hinder the defense.
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.