Dismissed Decisions
39 cases | Page 2 of 2
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (jointly referred to as 'the Abbott companies')
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted DexCom, Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiaries. Concurrently, the Abbott companies agreed to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. This mutual withdrawal resulted in the closure of the proceedings, meaning the patent EP 3 435 866 remains fully in force across all relevant territories. The decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding withdrawals during appeal.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL (collectively 'Magna')
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, Valeo Electrification successfully withdrew its infringement action against Magna. The withdrawal was permitted because the main proceedings were still subject to a pending appeal and Magna provided explicit consent for the case to be closed. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to terminate litigation before a final judgment is rendered.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL (and associated entities)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted Valeo Electrification to withdraw its infringement action against Magna. The withdrawal was facilitated by Magna's explicit consent and the absence of a final judgment in the underlying main proceedings due to an ongoing appeal. This decision highlights how parties can resolve complex litigation early through mutual agreement, even when provisional measures were previously granted.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope of public access to court documents, specifically addressing whether pending appeals or parallel proceedings justify withholding evidence from the public register. The Court ruled that once the CFI has rendered a decision, the general interest in public access prevails, even if the initial order concerned provisional measures. This ruling significantly lowers the threshold for transparency in UPC litigation, reinforcing the principle of open justice.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request by Menarini to re-establish confidentiality protections for technical information during the appeal phase. The court found that these requests were redundant because the original CFI order already mandated continuous protection and restricted access to specific parties. While the formal R. 262A RoP requests were dismissed, the Court confirmed that the existing restrictions on accessing confidential documents would remain in force.
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal challenging a provisional measures order, but ultimately focused on procedural compliance regarding court fees. The Appellant failed to pay the required remainder and penalty fees after being ordered to provide evidence of his small enterprise status. Consequently, the Court issued a decision by default against the Appellant, dismissing the appeal. This case highlights the strict adherence UPC courts maintain to procedural deadlines and financial obligations.
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.
DexCom, Inc v.Abbott Laboratories
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the admissibility of an appeal against a confidentiality order issued by the Court of First Instance. The Appellants (Abbott) sought to challenge the penalty ceiling set in the order but failed because they had not obtained 'leave to appeal' as required by Rule 220.2 RoP. The court ruled that without this prerequisite authorization, the appeal was inadmissible from its inception.
DexCom, Inc v.Abbott Laboratories
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a fundamental procedural requirement: the necessity of obtaining leave to appeal. The case involved an attempt by Abbott Laboratories to challenge a confidentiality order issued in a patent infringement suit brought by DexCom, Inc. Despite withdrawing their appeal after learning that no leave had been granted, the Court of Appeal ruled it inadmissible from the start. This ruling serves as a strong reminder for practitioners regarding strict adherence to procedural rules when filing appeals within the UPC.
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.