Denied Decisions
162 cases | Page 4 of 6
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed requests for the expedition of appeals concerning the validity of European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to a prosthetic heart valve. The court ultimately rejected Meril's pleas for an expedited timeline. The ruling reinforces that procedural concerns regarding potential injunction risks must be managed through existing mechanisms within the UPC, rather than solely relying on accelerated timetables.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addressed requests for expedition in multiple appeals concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent covering a prosthetic heart valve. The court ultimately rejected Meril's pleas to accelerate the proceedings, citing that existing legal mechanisms could manage the risks associated with pending validity challenges. This decision reinforces the standard procedural timetable of the UPC unless exceptional circumstances are met.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding jurisdiction within the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Advanced Bionics sought to transfer an infringement case to the Central Board to coordinate proceedings with a parallel revocation action. The UPC Appeals Board rejected this request, emphasizing that Article 33 of the EPC mandates party consent for such a jurisdictional shift. This ruling reinforces the strict adherence to procedural rules over convenience in managing complex litigation.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed an application by Advanced Bionics to change the proceedings language from German to English, matching the patent's language. The court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while factors like industry standard language (English) and the patent language are considered, they do not override considerations such as parties' domicile and existing procedural arrangements. This case reinforces the UPC's discretionary approach to language changes, requiring a careful balancing of interests rather than relying solely on technical or commercial convenience.
AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This UPC appeal decision addresses complex issues of international jurisdiction in patent infringement cases involving internet-based services. The court provided a clear interpretation of how Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation applies to digital infringement, stating that potential damage can arise from accessing services within the member state where the patent is effective. This ruling provides significant guidance for practitioners dealing with cross-border streaming and software patents.
AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This decision from the UPC Board of Appeal addresses procedural matters concerning an appeal filed by Aylo companies against a prior local court order. The core issue was whether the parties could unilaterally submit additional arguments under Rule 9.1. The Board firmly rejected this interpretation, clarifying that all supplementary submissions must be approved by the presiding judge in accordance with Rules 36 and 220.4 of the UPC Rules of Procedure. This ruling reinforces strict procedural control within the UPC litigation framework.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning an order from the Court of First Instance that rejected Microsoft's application to declare Suinno's infringement action manifestly inadmissible. The court ruled that such orders, which deal with case management and procedural admissibility (R.361 RoP), are not subject to discretionary appeal under Rule 220.3 RoP. Instead, they must be challenged via an application for review by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Ona Patents SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the timing of written submissions in an ongoing patent dispute involving Apple and Ona Patents SL. The court strictly interpreted the Rules of Procedure, holding that requests for further pleadings must be filed before the rapporteur concludes the written phase and schedules the oral hearing. Consequently, the appellants' late submission was rejected, allowing the case to proceed as planned.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This UPC appeal addressed the scope of confidentiality protections and the inclusion of in-house counsel under Rule 262A RoP. The claimants argued that their respondents' US-based in-house patent attorneys posed an inherent risk of misusing confidential information for parallel litigation strategies, demanding a 'prosecution bar.' However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that abstract risks are insufficient to deny access if no concrete evidence of misconduct exists. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural necessity and expert involvement often outweigh theoretical confidentiality concerns in UPC proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC appellate case involved an application by 10x Genomics to reopen proceedings following a ruling that overturned an initial injunction against NanoString Technologies. 10x argued that the original judgment violated fundamental procedural rights, specifically regarding the court's reliance on its own technical expertise rather than party-submitted evidence. The Appellate Court firmly rejected this claim, stating that judicial assessment of facts and evidence is not subject to review in a reopening application, thereby upholding the previous decisions.
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.