Luxembourg (LU)
353 cases · page 9 of 12
Showing 241–269Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This appeal concerns a dispute over the scope of a preliminary injunction issued against Magna by the CFI, specifically regarding whether the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was correctly exempted from supply obligations. Magna sought suspensive effect to prevent enforcement on this specific model while its appeal proceeded. The Court of Appeal Standing Judge granted an interim order suspending the relevant part of the injunction, recognizing Magna’s interest in maintaining the status quo until a full panel decision is reached.
Verweerder (unnamed in the provided text, but implied to be the party holding the patent) v.OrthoApnea S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision focused primarily on procedural matters concerning the admissibility of new arguments during an infringement case involving a sleep splint device. The court ruled that while parties are generally expected to present their full case early, new arguments can be admitted if circumstances permit and the opposing party has a chance to respond. Ultimately, the appeal against the review judgment was dismissed, upholding the lower court's findings on procedural grounds.
Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
In a significant procedural ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to an order issued by the CFI. The dispute involved Magna International and Valeo Electrification regarding patent EP 3 320 602, which covers technology used in BMW models. Magna successfully argued that the original injunction contained a clear error—an 'obvious slip'—by omitting a specific model from its exceptions. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to correct procedural errors and prioritize maintaining the status quo when such errors threaten fundamental fairness.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical point regarding the transitional regime: whether prior national court proceedings can block an effective withdrawal of an opt-out. The Court held that Art. 83(4) UPCA only restricts actions brought during the transitional period, meaning pre-transitional litigation does not invalidate a subsequent opt-out withdrawal. This ruling provides significant clarity and relief for patent holders seeking to utilize the UPC system after initially opting out.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical point regarding the transitional regime: whether prior national court proceedings can block an opt-out withdrawal. The Court held that only actions brought during the transitional period count against the ability to withdraw, thereby validating AIM's attempt to re-enter the UPC system for its patent. This ruling significantly eases the burden on patentees seeking to utilize the UPC after having previously engaged with national courts.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Scandit AG seeking permission to submit a reply brief in an ongoing infringement appeal against Hand Held Products, Inc. The court ultimately denied the request, reinforcing strict adherence to the rules governing written submissions in the appellate phase. The ruling underscores the importance of 'front-loaded' arguments and efficiency in UPC proceedings, preventing parties from introducing new substantive points late in the process.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning an infringement case involving Philips and Belkin regarding inductive power transfer technology (EP 2 867 997). The court ruled on the conditions necessary to grant a stay of execution, emphasizing that the application must be self-sufficient for preliminary review. Crucially, the decision also clarified the legal limitations on holding company directors liable as secondary infringers under EPC Article 63, while ultimately granting the stay against specific individuals.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This UPC Appeal Board decision addressed a motion to admit new evidence in an ongoing infringement case involving SharkNinja and Dyson regarding EP 2 043 492. SharkNinja sought to introduce documents from a US patent litigation, arguing that the opposing party's interpretation of key features was crucial for determining novelty and inventive step. The Appeal Board ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that evidence from other proceedings must meet strict relevance criteria and cannot simply contradict arguments made in the current case.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Microsoft Corporation to review an order dismissing its application that Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action was manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued the lack of independence of Suinno’s representative made the case clearly bound to fail under R. 361 RoP. The Court ultimately dismissed Microsoft's request, emphasizing that 'manifest inadmissibility' requires a clear-cut situation and should not be used for general disputes over legal interpretation.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a purely procedural matter concerning the admissibility of an appeal against a first-instance order. The appellant, Photon Wave Co., Ltd., challenged the lack of explicit authorization to appeal. The court ruled that under Rule 220.2 RdP, such authorization must be expressly granted by the Tribunal; general references are not enough.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for expedition rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. EOFlow sought to accelerate the appeal process to facilitate the joinder of parallel actions before oral hearings. However, the court rejected this request, finding that EOFlow's delay in filing its statement of grounds prejudiced the respondent, Insulet. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to procedural fairness and proportionality when managing timelines.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal order addressed a procedural challenge brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against an earlier CFI order concerning security for costs. Suinno sought discretionary review, arguing that the original CFI order failed to properly indicate its right to appeal under UPCA rules. The Court ultimately dismissed the request, emphasizing strict adherence to the appellate procedure.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
This UPC appeal case centered on procedural disputes regarding the scope of arguments and the admissibility of new evidence in a patent infringement/validity matter concerning vacuum cleaner technology. Dyson sought to have certain grounds for invalidity disregarded by the Board of Appeal, while SharkNinja attempted to introduce late-filed US documents (FBD 27 and FBD 28) as supporting evidence. The Board ultimately rejected Dyson's procedural request but dismissed SharkNinja's attempts to introduce new material, emphasizing strict adherence to established appeal procedures.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH / Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision focused solely on the allocation of legal costs following an initial case where the defendant submitted a declaration of cessation and undertaking. The court affirmed that while such declarations often favor the claimant, Meril was ultimately held liable for the appeal costs due to its procedural conduct in the first instance. This ruling reinforces the principle that cost allocation under Art. 69 EPGÜ considers not only the final outcome but also the degree of success or failure throughout the proceedings.
Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This decision from the UPC Appeals Court addressed a procedural dispute regarding deadlines for filing pleadings (Duplik) in an ongoing infringement and revocation action. Xiaomi sought discretionary review to overturn a previous ruling that partially denied their request for a deadline extension, arguing inconsistencies across different Local Divisions of the UPC. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no sufficient grounds to overturn the lower court's procedural decision.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural point regarding the notification of default judgment risks. The court clarified that when ordering a party to provide security for costs, the warning about potential default proceedings (under R.355 RoP) does not need to be embedded in the main operative text of the order. Instead, it can be communicated through a separate judicial order. This ruling provides clarity on procedural requirements within UPC actions, particularly concerning cost security and its implications for case progression.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural point concerning the notification requirements under Rule R.158.4 RoP regarding security for costs. The court clarified that even if an initial order specifies a deadline for providing security, the warning about potential default judgment (under R.355 RoP) does not need to be embedded within that original operative text. Instead, a separate notification order is sufficient to ensure procedural fairness and compliance.
Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters related to an infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox concerning a snow avalanche transceiver (LVS) device protected by EP 3 466 498. The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals regarding interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's decision, but Mammut was ordered to cover additional provisional costs incurred by Ortovox during the appellate process.
Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters within a patent infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox regarding an LVS device (EP 3 466 498). The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals concerning interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. While the core dispute was about patent validity/infringement, the ruling ultimately dismissed Mammut's appeal and ordered them to cover additional provisional costs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses a motion for the production of evidence (R.190 VerfO) in an SEP dispute concerning 4G mobile phone standards. OPPO and OROPE sought access to Panasonic's confidential licensing agreements to bolster their FRAND defense, arguing that transparency was necessary. The Court ultimately rejected these requests, stressing the principle of proportionality and the need to protect trade secrets, even when dealing with SEPs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addressed an application for the production of evidence (R.190 VerfO) during a complex SEP/FRAND dispute involving OPPO, OROPE, and Panasonic. The court rejected the request by the defendants to obtain extensive documentation from Panasonic regarding its licensing agreements with third parties. The ruling underscores the judicial balancing act required when assessing requests for confidential information in FRAND cases, prioritizing proportionality over broad disclosure.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses an appeal concerning the disclosure of confidential license agreements during a SEP dispute involving Panasonic, OPPO, and OROPE. The core issue was whether the defendants could compel the production of extensive third-party licensing data to support their FRAND defense. The court ultimately rejected these requests, ruling that while transparency is important, the principle of proportionality and trade secret protection must be balanced against the current stage of the proceedings. This decision reinforces the judiciary's cautious approach to broad discovery in complex SEP litigation.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case. The appeal sought to change the language from German to English, based on the patent's grant language and the defendant's operational context. The court ultimately sided with the defendant (Google), establishing that while claimants have a right to choose the language, this right is balanced against the principle of fairness for the defendant. This ruling provides important guidance on how procedural rights interact with the need to ensure equitable litigation in the UPC.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses preliminary objections and requests under Rule 361 RoP in a complex infringement case involving NST and Audi. The court established key procedural boundaries, ruling that R.361 challenges are not suitable for full evidentiary battles. Crucially, the panel affirmed that an initial claim detailing one infringing example while listing others does not automatically fail the 'manifestly bound to fail' test. This decision reinforces the flexibility of UPC procedure while maintaining standards for early case filtering.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Apple and Ona Patents SL. The appeal sought to change the language from German (the patent's granting language) to English, based on the multinational nature of Apple and the technical field's common use of English. The court ultimately sided with Apple, finding that maintaining the German language would disproportionately disadvantage the defendant, thereby upholding the principle of fairness over the claimant's initial choice.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP concerning infringement actions involving automotive technology patents. The court clarified that R.361 procedures are limited and not suitable for comprehensive factual disputes, emphasizing that detailed claims with lists of similar infringing embodiments do not automatically render an action 'manifestly bound to fail.' This ruling provides guidance on the scope of early procedural challenges in UPC litigation.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In this appeal concerning security for costs, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the financial vulnerability of a patent enforcement entity (NST) versus a large corporate defendant (Volkswagen). The court ruled that while the relative size of the parties is not a determining factor, the requesting party must provide concrete evidence of an actual risk of non-recoverability or unenforceability. Consequently, the previous order was set aside, and NST was ordered to post security for costs in specific amounts.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a complex jurisdictional and procedural issue concerning the interplay between national revocation proceedings (in Germany) and an action before the Unified Patent Court. The court confirmed that while the parties in the German and UPC actions were distinct, necessitating the rejection of Mala's primary request to decline jurisdiction, it ultimately granted the crucial auxiliary request for a stay. This ruling provides significant guidance on when procedural fairness requires the UPC to pause proceedings pending outcomes in parallel national litigation.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical issue of security for costs in complex patent litigation. The court ruled that while the burden is on the requesting party to prove financial risk, the relative wealth of the parties is not determinative. It affirmed that a special purpose entity's business model (like NST) cannot be unfairly penalized by demanding excessive security. This ruling provides important guidance on balancing procedural fairness with cost recovery in UPC proceedings.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited et al.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical issue of security for costs in patent litigation. The court upheld the requirement that a claimant provide adequate financial guarantees to cover potential legal expenses if they lose the case. Despite presenting an insurance policy, the court found it insufficient because its purpose was to protect the insured party (ICPillar), not the applicant (ARM). Furthermore, the court rejected ICPillar's request for a US-licensed bank guarantee, emphasizing that security requirements are based on substantive grounds, not discrimination.
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.