Denied Decisions
162 cases | Page 3 of 6
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.