Dismissed Decisions
39 cases | Page 1 of 2
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. v.Amgen, Inc
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns procedural matters, specifically the withdrawal of applications for rehearing in a complex dispute involving Sanofi and Amgen over patent EP 3 666 797. Following earlier proceedings where the Central Division had revoked the patent, both parties engaged in appeals and subsequent requests for rehearing. Ultimately, the Court permitted the withdrawal of these procedural actions upon consent from all involved parties. This case highlights how UPC courts manage complex litigation pathways when parties agree to terminate specific stages of the legal process.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS v.Amgen N.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal in a pharmaceutical infringement case (Sanofi/Regeneron v. Amgen). Although the parties successfully withdrew the proceedings, citing an agreement and consent from all parties, the court strictly ruled on the financial aspects. The request for reimbursement of court fees was dismissed because the withdrawal occurred after the written procedure had been closed, demonstrating the Court's adherence to procedural timelines.
Amgen N.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Amgen against a prior ruling in infringement proceedings. The case, involving major biotech players like Regeneron and Sanofi, was ultimately withdrawn because the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Although the court permitted the procedural withdrawal, it strictly denied Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees, highlighting the precise application of UPC Rules of Procedure regarding timing and fee recovery.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. v.F. Hoffmann- La Roche AG
This UPC appeal case involved an application for interim measures concerning patent EP 1 962 668, filed by Menarini Diagnostics against Roche. After the initial proceedings at the Local Division of Düsseldorf, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the claimants withdrew their request for provisional relief. The UPC Board of Appeal accepted this withdrawal and terminated the case, highlighting the importance of amicable resolution in complex patent litigation.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of an appeal filed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V against a prior infringement judgment issued by the Local Division in favor of HL Display AB. Due to pending settlement discussions, Black Sheep withdrew its appeal with the consent of HL Display. The court formally permitted this withdrawal and addressed the associated application for reimbursement of court fees under the updated Rules of Procedure.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of appeals in a dispute between Samsung Bioepis and Alexion Pharmaceuticals regarding EP 3 167 888. The case, which had previously involved provisional measures and cost disputes, was ultimately closed when both parties agreed to withdraw their respective applications for leave to appeal. The court confirmed that consent from the opposing party negates any legitimate interest in the continuation of the proceedings.
Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of an application for rehearing related to EP 2 152 073. Both parties, Sumi Agro and Syngenta, jointly requested the withdrawal, leading the court to permit it under R. 265.1 RoP. While the core dispute was dropped, the Court provided clear guidance on procedural matters, specifically confirming that joint requests for withdrawal waive the need for a cost decision but do not automatically allow for fee waivers.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural appeal concerning the admissibility of exhibits and submissions during infringement proceedings related to a pharmaceutical SPC. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that it had become devoid of purpose because the underlying matter—the provisional measures application—had already been decided in favor of the appellant (Viatris). This highlights the importance of assessing legal interest when determining whether an action warrants adjudication under UPC rules.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, Realme Germany GmbH, Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V., OTECH Italia S.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Innovative Sonic Corporation and OPPO et al. The appeal sought to overturn the initial decision to switch from German to English, arguing that this change created undue costs for the claimant. However, the Court upheld the original order, finding that English was the common working language across the parties' global operations and technology field. This ruling reinforces the court's discretion in prioritizing fairness based on practical factors like industry language and party domicile.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party intervenor (Streithelfer) when the main party withdraws their appeal. The case involved Strabag and Swarco, with Chainzone intervening to support Strabag's position regarding patent EP 2 643 717. When Strabag settled out of court and withdrew its appeal, the UPC ruled that Chainzone’s intervention became legally moot. This decision clarifies strict rules governing third-party involvement in appellate proceedings.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party assisting party (Streithelfer) when the main supported party withdraws their appeal. Chainzone, acting as an assistant to Strabag, sought to continue its own infringement appeal against Swarco. However, because Strabag reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew its appeal, the court ruled that Chainzone's independent legal standing was lost. Consequently, Chainzone's appeal was dismissed without subject matter.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V. and Easee Holding B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an infringement appeal following an out-of-court settlement between Visibly Inc. and Easee B.V. The court formally permitted the withdrawal, declaring the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling clarified the procedural implications of such a withdrawal, specifically addressing the reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.9 RoP. This case serves as an important reminder for practitioners that settlement can lead to formal closure and fee recovery within the UPC framework.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion regarding cost determination following an earlier ruling. Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a specific cost allocation, but subsequently withdrew its application due to an administrative error. The court accepted this withdrawal, effectively closing the costs procedure without altering the underlying substantive dispute or the initial cost split.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of an appeal against a security for costs order. Chint appealed the Local Division's ruling, arguing that the order was legally flawed. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal entirely, not on the merits of the security requirement itself, but because the initial case management order did not meet the procedural requirements for appeal under UPC rules. This reinforces strict adherence to internal appellate procedures within the UPC.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a case concerning security for costs and the disposal of an action that has become devoid of purpose. The claimant, Ballinno B.V., initially sought provisional measures related to patent EP 1 944 067 but subsequently withdrew these requests on appeal. Consequently, the court disposed of the action while rejecting Ballinno's request to set aside the security for costs. This ruling reinforces procedural principles regarding case abandonment and cost allocation in UPC litigation.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC appellate case involved ILME appealing a rejection of its opposition against an infringement suit brought by PHOENIX regarding EP 3 602 692. However, before the appeal could be decided on merits, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to the withdrawal and termination of the original infringement proceedings. The UPC Appeals Board subsequently dismissed ILME's appeal under Rule 360 because the underlying dispute had become moot.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses complex jurisdictional questions regarding the temporal scope of the UPCA Agreement, specifically concerning acts occurring before its entry into force or during a patent's opt-out period. The court affirmed that the UPC possesses competence over these historical infringement acts, provided the action is lodged while the patent is under exclusive jurisdiction. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners navigating transitional periods and opting out of the UPC system.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In this appeal case, NanoString Technologies sought to withdraw its revocation action against Harvard University concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, noting that Harvard had not demonstrated a legitimate interest in continuing the proceedings after being given an opportunity to respond. This decision effectively closed the legal dispute and resulted in the release of NanoString's security deposit.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter where NJOY Netherlands B.V. sought to withdraw an appeal against Juul Labs International Inc. The underlying action was a revocation suit brought before the CFI, which had previously dismissed it. Given that both parties consented to the withdrawal, the CoA permitted the closure of the proceedings. This case highlights the importance of party consent in procedural matters under the UPC Rules of Procedure.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against a preliminary procedural order issued in the main infringement case involving Amazon. The core issue was whether the appeal remained viable after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently withdrew the original patent infringement claim. The court determined that because the underlying dispute had been resolved, the appeal itself became moot. This ruling reinforces the principle of procedural efficiency within the UPC system, confirming that appeals must be dismissed when the subject matter they address is no longer legally relevant.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy, TGI Sport Virtual Limited, Supponor SASU, TGI Sport Italia S.r.l., Supponor España SL (jointly referred to as TGI)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural motions concerning the amendment of claims and the addition of a defendant in an infringement action. The court upheld the Local Division's decision to allow AIM Sport Development AG to amend its claim and add TGI UK as a party, despite objections from the defendants (TGI). The ruling emphasizes the balance between claimant's needs for comprehensive relief and procedural efficiency, confirming that such amendments are permissible if they do not unduly hinder the defense.
Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of a counterclaim for patent revocation filed by Ericsson against Motorola. Following an initial infringement action, Ericsson sought to withdraw its revocation claim and associated appeal after both parties agreed that there was no legitimate interest in the court proceeding. The Court granted the withdrawal based on the respondent's consent, effectively closing the case.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter: the withdrawal of an application for leave to appeal. EOFlow Co., Ltd. sought to withdraw its appeal against a cost decision issued by the Court of First Instance, and Insulet Corporation agreed to this withdrawal. The Court granted the request, confirming that parties can withdraw their actions under Rule 265 RoP when no final judgment has been rendered in the main case.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
In this UPC decision, the Board of Appeal allowed Scandit AG to withdraw its application for an interim injunction against Hand Held Products, Inc., concerning patent EP 3 866 051. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties and permitted under Rule 265.1 VerfO. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to terminate proceedings amicably before a final judgment is reached.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural decision concerning EP 4108782, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed 10x Genomics to withdraw its appeals against orders issued by the court of first instance. The case involved disputes over document submission requests made by Vizgen during an infringement action initiated by 10x. Both parties consented to the withdrawal, leading the appellate body to terminate the proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision concerns an application by 10x Genomics to withdraw its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The appeal concerned a patent infringement case involving EP 4108782, where Vizgen had requested the disclosure of specific documents from 10x. Both parties agreed to the withdrawal of the appeals. The court accepted this request, formally concluding the appellate proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 4108782, the Court of Appeal allowed 10x Genomics to withdraw all its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division in Hamburg. Vizgen agreed to this withdrawal. This decision highlights the flexibility within the UPC framework regarding appeal withdrawals, provided no final judgment has been rendered on the underlying infringement case.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted Curio Bioscience to withdraw its appeal against an earlier decision concerning security for legal costs. The court found that since 10x Genomics had not formally objected to the withdrawal request within the statutory timeframe, it could not be considered to have a legitimate interest in maintaining the proceedings. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility available under UPC rules regarding appeals and withdrawals.
Sodastream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
This UPC Court of Appeal order concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Aarke AB against a finding of infringement made by the CFI. The court permitted the withdrawal because the claimant, Sodastream Industries Ltd., did not object to the request. While Aarke was deemed the unsuccessful party and liable for costs, the proceedings were closed upon the successful withdrawal.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Newyu, Inc.)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation involving DexCom, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories/associated companies regarding patent EP 3 831 282. The court emphasized that such withdrawals are permissible during appeal proceedings if no final decision is binding. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to terminate litigation.
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.