Denied Decisions
162 cases | Page 5 of 6
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding service of process on non-EU defendants, specifically those based in China and Hong Kong. Panasonic challenged the court's requirement for prior Hague Convention service attempts before allowing service via an EU group company (Xiaomi DE). The Board upheld the lower court's stance, emphasizing that corporate structure alone does not satisfy the requirements for valid cross-border service to non-EU jurisdictions. This ruling reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC cases involving international defendants, particularly when attempting to leverage intra-group relationships for jurisdictional purposes.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict rules governing service of process for defendants located outside the EU, specifically in China and Taiwan. The court ruled that a group company within an EU Member State cannot substitute for the statutory seat or principal place of business of its foreign affiliate. This ruling emphasizes that parties must follow established international procedures, such as the Hague Convention, when serving claims on non-EU entities.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addressed Alexion Pharmaceuticals' appeal against a prior decision concerning provisional measures. The core issue was Alexion's request for an expedited hearing, arguing that the matter was purely legal and required swift resolution. The Court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing the need to balance due process with the respondent's interests, thereby maintaining standard procedural timelines.
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.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding its application for provisional measures against Amgen entities. The appeal sought an expedited hearing process under UPC Rules of Procedure. However, the Court of Appeal ultimately rejected the request for expedition, finding that Alexion's arguments were insufficient to outweigh the respondents' interests in maintaining standard procedural timelines. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain accelerated proceedings within the Unified Patent Court framework.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of serving legal documents on defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong during infringement proceedings. NEC Corporation sought alternative service methods, such as email or public notice, but the Court rejected these requests. The ruling reinforces that while the UPC has its own procedural rules, they must operate within the framework of international conventions (like the Hague Convention) and respect the national laws of the contracting states. This decision serves as a critical reminder to practitioners about the strict requirements for cross-border service in the UPC.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of serving legal documents on defendants domiciled in non-EU jurisdictions, specifically China and Hong Kong. NEC Corporation sought to use alternative service methods (email or public notice) for its TCL counterparts, but the Court rejected this request. The ruling reinforces that procedural formalities regarding international service cannot be bypassed simply due to the claimant's desire for a swift remedy, emphasizing adherence to both UPC rules and relevant national laws.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed requests concerning auxiliary claims and deadlines in a provisional measures appeal involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The court ultimately rejected Abbott's attempts to disregard the Respondents' request for an extension of time. This decision highlights the court's careful balancing act between parties' interests, particularly when new procedural requests are introduced late in proceedings.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Vivisol B BV
This UPC appeal addressed a procedural request by Vivisol B BV seeking to suspend proceedings and extend deadlines related to an infringement action brought by OrthoApnea S.L. The Court of Appeal ultimately rejected the suspension request, ruling that parties must adhere to standard litigation procedures regardless of potential future appellate outcomes. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural steps in UPC cases must proceed without undue delay, even when substantive issues are under appeal.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG et al. v.Ona Patents SL
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Apple seeking to accelerate the appeal process and reduce the deadline for Ona's reply. The court ultimately denied the request, holding that while acceleration was possible, Apple failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to override Ona's right to a fair trial. This case underscores the judiciary's careful balancing act between party efficiency demands and fundamental procedural fairness within the UPC framework.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope and persistence of confidential information protection orders (R.262A RoP) across different procedural stages. The court held that confidentiality obligations established by the CFI remain fully effective in subsequent appeal proceedings, negating the need for redundant protective measures. This ruling provides clarity on how parties must manage sensitive evidence when appealing decisions.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited et al.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural motions concerning an appeal against a security for costs order. ICPillar LLC sought suspensive effect on the order requiring them to deposit €400,000 and requested the appeal be expedited. The Court ultimately rejected both requests, emphasizing that while Article 74 UPCA provides grounds for granting suspensive effect, such relief must be exceptional. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural appeals should not unduly hinder proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application to partially withdraw an appeal in an infringement case. The claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to remove two respondents (Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE) from the ongoing appeal proceedings. However, the Court ruled against this withdrawal, emphasizing that even indirect interests—such as those related to service obligations or the course of litigation—constitute a legitimate interest under UPC rules. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural fairness requires all affected parties to be heard.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical procedural requirement for opting out of the Unified Patent Court's jurisdiction. The court ruled that an opt-out application must be lodged by or on behalf of every proprietor holding any national part of the European patent. This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of Art. 83(3) UPCA, ensuring that no single owner can unilaterally remove a patent from UPC competence if co-ownership exists across different member states.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co, Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural issue of partially withdrawing an appeal against multiple defendants in a patent infringement case. Nera Innovations sought to withdraw its appeal specifically against two EU-based Xiaomi entities (NL and DE), arguing they lacked legitimate interest due to prior service of process. The court rejected this request, emphasizing that even if some parties are not directly affected by the procedural change, their right to due process must be protected. This ruling reinforces the importance of considering all stakeholders' interests when managing complex multi-defendant litigation in the UPC.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical procedural issue of staying revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings at the EPO. The court clarified that while harmonization is a goal, it does not mandate a stay simply because parallel actions exist. Crucially, acceleration requests by the patent proprietor are insufficient; the applicant must demonstrate an expectation of a rapid decision to justify halting UPC litigation.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings. The court found that the arguments presented were too vague and lacked sufficient substantiation to justify shortening any deadlines under R.9.3(b). This order highlights the strict requirements parties must meet when seeking procedural acceleration within the UPC framework.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Audi AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Audi argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The court found that the request lacked sufficient specificity and substantiation, upholding procedural norms and protecting the interests of the respondent, NST.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition made by Texas Instruments during an appeal concerning security for costs. The court rejected the motion, finding that the arguments presented were too vague and lacked sufficient substantiation to justify shortening any deadlines in the ongoing proceedings. This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for requesting procedural acceleration within the UPC framework.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
In a procedural matter concerning an appeal, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings and shorten deadlines. Volkswagen argued that delays were causing increased legal costs related to security for costs. The court ruled that the request lacked sufficient substantiation and specificity, emphasizing adherence to established procedural timelines and principles of proportionality.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Texas Instruments sought to accelerate the appeal process, arguing that delays increased its legal costs while awaiting security for costs. The court ultimately rejected this plea, finding the request too vague and lacking sufficient justification to override standard procedural timelines.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Texas Instruments sought to shorten deadlines due to ongoing legal costs related to the appeal against a security for costs dismissal. The court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the application was too vague and lacked sufficient justification to warrant altering the established timelines.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Audi AG sought to accelerate the appeal process against an earlier dismissal of its security for costs application. The court rejected this request, finding that it was too vague and lacked sufficient justification to warrant shortening deadlines. This highlights the strict requirements for requesting expedited proceedings within the UPC framework.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural order concerning an appeal against a dismissal of a security for costs application, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Volkswagen argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The court found that the request lacked sufficient specificity and substantiation, upholding procedural norms and protecting the respondent's interests.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Audi AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Audi argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b). The court found the request lacked sufficient substantiation and specificity, upholding standard procedural timelines.
VusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
VusionGroup SA appealed a decision rejecting its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology regarding EP 3883277, which covers electronic price labels. The UPC Board of Appeal found that the products manufactured by Hanshow did not meet all the technical requirements defined in the patent claims. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the initial rejection and holding VusionGroup liable for legal costs.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for an extension of time to lodge grounds of appeal in the main infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_169/2024). Daedalus Prime LLC sought additional time, arguing the complexity of the legal issues and potential precedent implications. The Panel ultimately denied this request, reinforcing the principle that parties must present thorough arguments proactively rather than relying on procedural delays to gather external opinions.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the timing for filing an appeal statement following the granting of leave to appeal. Toyota sought a default judgment against Neo, arguing that Neo missed the deadline based on the date of the initial order. The Court definitively ruled that the relevant 15-day period begins only upon service of the specific decision granting leave to appeal, not the original impugned order. This ruling provides crucial clarity for practitioners navigating procedural deadlines in UPC appeals.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore Sp. z o.o., Autostore System GmbH, Autostore System AT GmbH, Autostore System AB, Autostore System S.L, Autostore System Srl, Autostore AS, Autostore S.A.S.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope of public access to court documents under R.262.1(b) RoP, specifically in the context of a settlement reached in infringement proceedings. The court ruled that while confidentiality interests must be considered (Art. 45 UPCA), the general interest in justice and public order generally favors granting access unless the requester has a direct, specific legitimate interest in the subject matter. This ruling provides important guidance on balancing transparency with proprietary rights within UPC litigation.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a defendant's name in five revocation actions. The core issue was whether the initial clerical error, where 'Juul Labs, Inc.' was named instead of 'Juul Labs International, Inc.', invalidated the proceedings. The court rejected the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision to rectify the name, thereby allowing the underlying revocation actions to proceed.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a party's name in five revocation actions. The respondent, Juul Labs International, Inc., appealed an order that corrected a clerical error in the defendant's name from 'Juul Labs, Inc.' to 'Juul Labs International, Inc.'. The court rejected the appeal, affirming the procedural correction. Crucially, the decision also provided guidance on cost allocation, stating that since this is not a final judgment on the merits of the revocation actions, costs will be determined later.
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.