Luxembourg (LU)
353 cases · page 8 of 12
Showing 211–239Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
In this UPC decision, Amazon sought the confidential classification and protection of sensitive commercial documents related to its licensing negotiations with Nokia. The Court partially granted the request, establishing a provisional order that specific information—such as negotiation timelines, license offers, and business models—must be treated confidentially under Article 58 EPC. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting trade secrets within litigation while maintaining transparency where possible.
Amazon.com, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a request by Amazon to impose additional confidentiality restrictions on documents within the ongoing appeal proceedings against Nokia. The core issue was whether new, stricter protection was needed beyond what had already been established by the Local Division in the main infringement case. The Board ultimately denied Amazon's request, finding that the existing court orders were sufficient and that Amazon's requests lacked necessary specificity regarding the information to be protected.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural issues concerning cost determination following a provisional measures case. The court ruled that deadlines for filing costs claims are tied to substantive decisions, not interim orders. Crucially, it affirmed that the principle allowing successful parties to claim legal costs (EPC Art. 69) applies even when no full infringement or validity proceedings have been initiated, provided the initial action was unsuccessful.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional question: whether the Unified Patent Court can hear an independent claim for damages following a successful national infringement judgment. The court affirmed that since the damage claim is rooted in patent infringement, it falls under the scope of Article 32(1)(a) EPC. This ruling provides significant clarity and predictability for patentees seeking to enforce their rights across the UPC system.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Bhagat Textile Engineers against Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG. The core issue was whether exceptional circumstances existed to halt the enforcement of a prior infringement judgment and associated penalties. The court ruled against Bhagat, emphasizing that merely claiming parallel proceedings or 'considerable doubts' is insufficient. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC appeals.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Board of Appeal addressed requests to withdraw an infringement suit and associated revocation counterclaims. The Court ruled that such withdrawals are permissible during appellate proceedings as long as no final judgment has become legally binding. This decision provides clarity on the timing constraints for withdrawing claims under Rule 265 VerfO and confirms the procedural effect of withdrawal, including the refund of court fees.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters concerning the withdrawal of a patent infringement claim and associated revocation counterclaims. The Court of Appeal confirmed that parties can withdraw their claims during the appellate phase, provided no final judgment has become legally binding. By allowing the withdrawal, the court terminated the main proceedings and granted Avago a refund of 60% of its appeal court fees. This ruling provides clarity on the timing and procedural requirements for withdrawing actions within the UPC system.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding security for costs in an ongoing infringement action involving TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR and Texas Instruments. The claimant challenged the initial order, arguing that the judge-rapporteur lacked competence to issue such a binding case management order and simultaneously deny leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that since security for costs is a case management matter, only the full panel can decide on leave to appeal. Consequently, the original order was revoked, and the case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL (collectively 'Magna')
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, Valeo Electrification successfully withdrew its infringement action against Magna. The withdrawal was permitted because the main proceedings were still subject to a pending appeal and Magna provided explicit consent for the case to be closed. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to terminate litigation before a final judgment is rendered.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL (and associated entities)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted Valeo Electrification to withdraw its infringement action against Magna. The withdrawal was facilitated by Magna's explicit consent and the absence of a final judgment in the underlying main proceedings due to an ongoing appeal. This decision highlights how parties can resolve complex litigation early through mutual agreement, even when provisional measures were previously granted.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for an extension of time, rather than the merits of the underlying patent dispute. Menarini sought an extension to file its statement of response due to technical difficulties with the Case Management System (CMS). The Court dismissed the request, clarifying that automatic extensions under R.301.2 RoP apply when electronic filing is temporarily impossible, making a discretionary order superfluous.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an appeal. DISH and Sling sought full reimbursement due to alleged errors in procedural instructions, but the Court ultimately granted only partial relief. The ruling confirms that even when appealing, parties are entitled to 60% fee reimbursement upon withdrawal, provided they meet the formal requirements under the Rules of Procedure.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope of public access to court documents, specifically addressing whether pending appeals or parallel proceedings justify withholding evidence from the public register. The Court ruled that once the CFI has rendered a decision, the general interest in public access prevails, even if the initial order concerned provisional measures. This ruling significantly lowers the threshold for transparency in UPC litigation, reinforcing the principle of open justice.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request by Menarini to re-establish confidentiality protections for technical information during the appeal phase. The court found that these requests were redundant because the original CFI order already mandated continuous protection and restricted access to specific parties. While the formal R. 262A RoP requests were dismissed, the Court confirmed that the existing restrictions on accessing confidential documents would remain in force.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for intervention by MediaTek, the manufacturer of the processors at issue (Dimensity). The appeal concerned a procedural dispute over access to confidential information regarding processor architecture. The court found that MediaTek possessed a direct and present legal interest in protecting this proprietary information, despite Xiaomi being the party who initially submitted it. This ruling reinforces the rights of technology owners to participate in confidentiality disputes related to their core intellectual property within UPC proceedings.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the translation requirement for evidence in appeal proceedings. Syngenta requested that a specific document, Exhibit FF25, not be translated into English. The court reviewed the relevant Rules of Procedure (RoP) and ultimately granted the request. The ruling clarifies the discretionary power of the Court of Appeal regarding language requirements when parties submit documents during appellate stages.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a case concerning an infringement action, Microsoft challenged the Court of First Instance's decision that allowed Suinno to reduce its claimed damages. Microsoft argued this change compromised its defense and exceeded procedural limits. However, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Microsoft’s discretionary review request, affirming that allowing a party to unconditionally limit their claim is a standard procedure under the Rules of Procedure (R 263.3 RoP). This decision reinforces the flexibility and fairness built into the UPC's litigation framework regarding claim amendments.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural ruling concerning the protection of confidential information, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Microsoft's request to keep certain details within Exhibit BP 01 private. This decision reinforces the court's ability to manage sensitive commercial data during litigation. The ruling clarifies the distinction between confidentiality for parties involved in the dispute and restrictions against public disclosure.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for provisional measures concerning a C5-binding antibody patent. The core issue revolved around claim interpretation, specifically whether a sequence ID number included extra amino acids as interpreted by the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA). The court ultimately found that this interpretation led to insufficient disclosure under Art. 83 EPC because the resulting claimed molecule was not functional as intended for drug use. Alexion's appeal was rejected, reinforcing strict standards regarding claim scope and enablement in biotech patents.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company et al.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for provisional measures concerning a monoclonal antibody used to treat rare diseases like PNH. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation and validity of the patent claims, specifically regarding amino acid sequences. The court ruled that the claim was insufficiently disclosed because the full sequence did not possess the claimed therapeutic activity, leading to the rejection of Alexion's appeal.
Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural issues arising from an appeal challenging provisional measures against Sumi Agro Limited. The core dispute involved the alleged infringement by Syngenta using different versions of a product named 'Kagura' (2023 vs 2024). The court ultimately allowed Syngenta to introduce new evidence detailing the characteristics and purchase of the 2024 product, finding that the late submission was justified. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in allowing relevant factual developments during appeal proceedings.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application by Curio Bioscience to grant suspensive effect to a prior Court of First Instance order requiring them to provide security for legal costs. The court ruled against Curio, emphasizing that the burden lies squarely on the applicant to prove 'extreme urgency' under Rule 223 RoP. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements for obtaining temporary relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when challenging interim measures.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
This appeal before the UPC Court of Appeal concerned an application for suspensive effect regarding a preliminary injunction issued by the CFI against Magna. The core dispute centered on whether a specific BMW model, the 2 Series Gran Coupé, was correctly exempted from the injunction's scope. The Court of Appeal sided with Magna, finding that the exclusion was arbitrary and disproportionate given the evidence of production plans for this vehicle. Consequently, the court suspended the effect of the injunction specifically for the 2 Series Gran Coupé model.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This UPC case involved a procedural application by Scandit AG requesting the court to mandate simultaneous interpretation for its upcoming oral hearing, switching from German to English. The Berichterstatter ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that since Scandit had filed its initial pleadings in German, it bore the responsibility of managing language requirements. Practitioners should note that courts are reluctant to impose mandatory translation services if a party has already chosen or could have chosen the procedural language.
NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the critical interplay between preliminary injunctions, their subsequent revocation, and the enforceability of associated penalty orders (Zwangsgelder). The court established that because initial injunctions are generally retroactive, overturning them eliminates the legal foundation for any coercive fine order. This ruling provides significant clarity on risk management for patentees relying on provisional measures in UPC proceedings.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
In a significant decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Dyson's request for an injunction against SharkNinja concerning EP 2 043 492. The court found that the probability of infringement was not overwhelmingly high, particularly regarding the cyclonic separating apparatus feature (1.3). This ruling underscores the high evidentiary threshold required to obtain provisional relief in UPC proceedings.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict criteria for granting security for costs under R.158 RoP, particularly when enforcement involves foreign jurisdictions like Israel. The court emphasized that a claimant's status as an SME or the defendant's affiliation with a financially sound group is irrelevant; only the defendant's individual financial capacity and the practical enforceability of a cost order matter. Aarke's appeal was rejected because it failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that enforcement in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal challenging a provisional measures order, but ultimately focused on procedural compliance regarding court fees. The Appellant failed to pay the required remainder and penalty fees after being ordered to provide evidence of his small enterprise status. Consequently, the Court issued a decision by default against the Appellant, dismissing the appeal. This case highlights the strict adherence UPC courts maintain to procedural deadlines and financial obligations.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the scope of judicial competence, specifically whether a judge-rapporteur can unilaterally impose security for costs and deny leave to appeal. The court ruled that while case management orders are generally not directly appealable, the underlying issue raised an important access to justice question about judicial authority. By allowing limited leave to appeal on this procedural point, the Court ensured that fundamental questions of procedure could be addressed by a panel.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB, Vab-Logistik UAB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a stay of infringement proceedings pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO. The court affirmed the legal basis for such a stay under Art. 33(10) UPCA, noting that it is crucial to prevent conflicting judgments between the UPC and the EPO regarding patent validity. Despite recognizing the merits of the request, the Court ultimately referred the case back to the Court of First Instance (CFI), allowing the CFI to exercise its discretion with full knowledge of the infringement proceedings' status.
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.