Luxembourg (LU)
353 cases · page 7 of 12
Showing 181–209Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of a counterclaim for patent revocation filed by Ericsson against Motorola. Following an initial infringement action, Ericsson sought to withdraw its revocation claim and associated appeal after both parties agreed that there was no legitimate interest in the court proceeding. The Court granted the withdrawal based on the respondent's consent, effectively closing the case.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter: the withdrawal of an application for leave to appeal. EOFlow Co., Ltd. sought to withdraw its appeal against a cost decision issued by the Court of First Instance, and Insulet Corporation agreed to this withdrawal. The Court granted the request, confirming that parties can withdraw their actions under Rule 265 RoP when no final judgment has been rendered in the main case.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This case involved an appeal by NJOY Netherlands B.V. challenging a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding the revocation of EP 2 875 740. The core issue was not the patent's validity, but procedural compliance. NJOY failed to pay the court fees for the appeal and subsequently waived its right to be heard on this point. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the entire appeal by default under Rule 229.4 RoP.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
In this UPC decision, the Board of Appeal allowed Scandit AG to withdraw its application for an interim injunction against Hand Held Products, Inc., concerning patent EP 3 866 051. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties and permitted under Rule 265.1 VerfO. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to terminate proceedings amicably before a final judgment is reached.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC appeal case involved ILME GmbH seeking to suspend the main infringement and revocation proceedings before the Local Division Munich while its preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court was being heard on appeal. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing the need for procedural efficiency and timely resolution. This decision reinforces the principle that jurisdictional challenges should be addressed within the UPC framework without unduly delaying substantive litigation.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a procedural motion regarding deadlines in an appeal case involving ILME and Phoenix Contact, concerning patent EP 3 646 825. The court was asked to grant a three-week extension for one party's reply brief. Ultimately, the court granted only a minimal three-day extension, emphasizing the need for efficient proceedings while maintaining procedural balance.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.ehemalige Patentinhaber
This UPC appellate decision addresses a complex issue regarding cost allocation in patent litigation where one party initiates an invalidity action and the other subsequently waives their rights to the patent. The court ruled that equitable considerations can override strict procedural requirements concerning the timing of a waiver and revocation request under Art. 105a EPC. This provides significant relief for patentees who may have delayed formalizing their withdrawal due to complex legal circumstances.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l.; Amazon EU S.à r.l.; Amazon.com, Inc.
This UPC Appeals Board decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Amazon, which sought an extension to submit written arguments regarding license agreements and expert opinions just days before the oral hearing. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that the established procedure of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) prioritizes efficiency and fairness. The ruling reinforces the strict adherence to the timeline of the appellate process, ensuring both parties have equal opportunity to present their case during the scheduled hearings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning appeals before the UPC's Appeals Board, 10x Genomics successfully petitioned for the refund of court fees. The decision confirmed that when an appeal is withdrawn before certain stages of proceedings are completed, the appellant is entitled to a partial reimbursement of the associated costs. This case highlights the practical application of cost recovery rules within the complex procedural framework of the UPC.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC's Board of Appeal addressed requests from 10x Genomics to recover court fees paid during three separate appeal proceedings. The court ruled in favor of 10x, granting partial refunds based on when they withdrew their appeals relative to the procedural stages (written vs. oral). This decision is significant for patent practitioners as it clarifies the application of fee refund rules under the UPC Agreement.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter regarding the refund of court fees paid by 10x Genomics during three separate appeal proceedings against Vizgen. The court ruled in favor of 10x, granting partial refunds based on when each respective appeal was withdrawn. This case highlights the practical application of fee refund rules within the UPC framework for parties who withdraw their appeals.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural decision concerning EP 4108782, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed 10x Genomics to withdraw its appeals against orders issued by the court of first instance. The case involved disputes over document submission requests made by Vizgen during an infringement action initiated by 10x. Both parties consented to the withdrawal, leading the appellate body to terminate the proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision concerns an application by 10x Genomics to withdraw its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The appeal concerned a patent infringement case involving EP 4108782, where Vizgen had requested the disclosure of specific documents from 10x. Both parties agreed to the withdrawal of the appeals. The court accepted this request, formally concluding the appellate proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 4108782, the Court of Appeal allowed 10x Genomics to withdraw all its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division in Hamburg. Vizgen agreed to this withdrawal. This decision highlights the flexibility within the UPC framework regarding appeal withdrawals, provided no final judgment has been rendered on the underlying infringement case.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited
In a significant ruling on provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal affirmed the validity and infringement likelihood of EP 2 152 073 concerning herbicide compositions. The court confirmed that the balance of interests favored granting an injunction against Sumi Agro. Furthermore, it clarified procedural aspects, specifically rejecting the requirement for Syngenta to provide security for enforcement, which is a key relief for patent holders seeking immediate protection.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted Curio Bioscience to withdraw its appeal against an earlier decision concerning security for legal costs. The court found that since 10x Genomics had not formally objected to the withdrawal request within the statutory timeframe, it could not be considered to have a legitimate interest in maintaining the proceedings. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility available under UPC rules regarding appeals and withdrawals.
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH; S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
In a significant decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Biolitec's attempt to secure an injunction against Lightguide companies concerning their laser fiber products. The court emphasized that provisional relief requires demonstrating immediate and irreparable harm that cannot wait for a full merits hearing. By dismissing the appeal, the UPC reinforced strict procedural requirements for seeking interim protection, particularly regarding the substantiation of market damage claims.
Hanshow Technology Co, Ltd v.VusionGroup SA
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural disputes regarding costs and the validity of an appeal against a cost determination. VusionGroup argued that Hanshow failed to meet formal requirements for filing the appeal (lack of separate grounds/statement) and defaulted on court fees. The Court ruled in favor of Hanshow, confirming that the initial application for admission contained sufficient detail, thus satisfying procedural requirements for appeals concerning costs. This decision clarifies the flexible nature of procedural rules when challenging cost orders within the UPC.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
In this procedural matter before the UPC Court of Appeal, Network System Technologies LLC sought the release of substantial security deposits previously ordered by the Munich Local Division. The security had been required to cover potential legal costs related to infringement proceedings against Volkswagen AG. Crucially, NTS subsequently withdrew its infringement actions at the lower court level. The Court of Appeal agreed that with the withdrawal of the main claims, the basis for maintaining the security vanished. This decision provides a clear procedural precedent regarding the timely release of funds when underlying litigation is terminated by the claimant.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of infringement actions. Network System Technologies LLC had deposited substantial funds to cover legal costs incurred by Audi AG during the proceedings. Since NTS subsequently withdrew its claims and closed the case at the Munich Local Division, the Court of Appeal granted the application for the full return of these security amounts. This ruling provides clarity on the procedural mechanism for releasing financial guarantees when litigation concludes prematurely.
Sodastream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
This UPC Court of Appeal order concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Aarke AB against a finding of infringement made by the CFI. The court permitted the withdrawal because the claimant, Sodastream Industries Ltd., did not object to the request. While Aarke was deemed the unsuccessful party and liable for costs, the proceedings were closed upon the successful withdrawal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal sided with Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., granting an injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The court set aside the initial CFI decision which had found potential added matter in the patent claims. This case highlights the high bar for obtaining preliminary relief while also providing clarity on how general injunctions can be justified based on a single type of infringement, making it crucial reading for medical device IP practitioners.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Respondent 1 / SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a critical procedural issue concerning representation before the court. The Court ruled that self-representation is invalid for lawyers and European Patent Attorneys when they are parties to the case, reinforcing strict due process requirements. Additionally, it clarified limitations on corporate representatives acting for legal entities if they lack independence. Consequently, the Court did not dismiss the access request but instead granted a 14-day grace period for the respondents to appoint proper authorized counsel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation before the court. The ruling firmly establishes that self-representation is invalid for lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are parties to the proceedings. Additionally, it reinforces the principle that corporate representatives holding high-level management roles cannot represent their companies due to independence requirements. The court provided a temporary grace period of 14 days for the involved parties to rectify these procedural defects by appointing proper legal counsel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Meril GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation in the Unified Patent Court, specifically concerning public access requests and party standing. The court ruled that self-representation is invalid for both lawyers/patent attorneys acting as parties and corporate officers holding high-level management roles. This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for legal independence under the UPC Agreement. The decision did not resolve the underlying merits of the case but instead issued an exceptional order, granting the involved parties a short window to appoint proper representatives and remedy procedural defects.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the scope of confidential information protection in an infringement case involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi. The court overturned a previous decision that denied access to Daedalus's US attorneys, recognizing their trustworthiness and necessity for effective litigation. This decision clarifies the boundaries of R. 262A RoP, confirming that professional assistants outside the strict definition of UPC representatives can be granted necessary access.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding party representation, specifically concerning confidentiality applications in an infringement case. The court upheld the finding that Suinno's representative lacked the necessary independence because he held extensive administrative and financial powers within his own company. This ruling reinforces strict interpretations of Art. 48 UPCA, emphasizing the absolute requirement for legal representatives to be sufficiently distant from their client's internal management.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Newyu, Inc.)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation involving DexCom, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories/associated companies regarding patent EP 3 831 282. The court emphasized that such withdrawals are permissible during appeal proceedings if no final decision is binding. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to terminate litigation.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (jointly referred to as 'the Abbott companies')
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted DexCom, Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiaries. Concurrently, the Abbott companies agreed to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. This mutual withdrawal resulted in the closure of the proceedings, meaning the patent EP 3 435 866 remains fully in force across all relevant territories. The decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding withdrawals during appeal.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (collectively 'the Abbott companies')
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal granted DexCom Inc.'s request to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and associated companies. This withdrawal followed mutual consent from both parties, allowing the court to declare all proceedings closed. The decision is significant as it reinforces the flexibility of the UPC system regarding case closure when parties agree, while also providing a clear procedural path for fee reimbursement.
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.