Granted Decisions
51 cases | Page 1 of 2
Amazon.com, Inc. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the rules surrounding the use of private transcripts derived from oral hearing recordings. The court ruled that while a full transcript is not automatically provided by the UPC, parties can obtain one with professional assistance if specific conditions are met. These conditions include clearly labeling the document as non-authoritative and ensuring compliance with all confidentiality and data protection mandates.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH v.Washtower IP B.V.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the parties agreed to settle the dispute regarding provisional measures. The court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal, contingent on Washtower covering all legal costs and compensating Bega for any damages resulting from the initial injunctions. Crucially, the court determined the value in dispute at €530,000, applying a specific calculation method derived from the Guidelines to assess recoverable costs.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling on security for costs, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned an order requiring Syntorr LP to provide a €2 million bank guarantee against Arthrex companies. The court found that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance, which included an anti-avoidance endorsement and was issued by an EU-licensed insurer, provided adequate financial protection. This decision provides important clarity on the acceptance of alternative security mechanisms in UPC proceedings, particularly for SMEs.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning procedural fairness in the UPC, the Court of Appeal addressed an application for security for costs. The court held that if a claimant holds comprehensive litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement (AAE) from an EU insurer, this coverage is sufficient to mitigate the risk of non-recoverable legal costs. This decision provides substantial relief to SMEs and claimants by establishing that financial solvency can be demonstrated through robust insurance rather than solely relying on bank guarantees.
Valeo Systemes D’essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS et autres (ROBERT BOSCH GROUP)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of an appeal against a preliminary order issued by the Trial Division Judge-Rapporteur. The case, involving Valeo and Robert Bosch concerning EP 2671766, centered on whether the specific type of procedural ruling fell under the scope of appeal defined in the UPC Agreement (AJUB). The Court ultimately ruled that the appeal was admissible, providing important guidance on how parties can challenge non-final, preliminary orders within the UPC framework.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This appeal court decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the release of security deposits in an ongoing patent dispute. Following a settlement agreement between Oerlikon and Bhagat regarding litigation costs, the Court of Appeal granted Oerlikon's request to have the €19,000 deposit released from Bhagat and transferred directly to Oerlikon's account. The ruling underscores the UPC's focus on procedural finality and facilitating amicable resolutions between parties.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural request for discretionary review filed by the defendants (Alpinestars) against an order from the Local Division. The core issue was whether the appeal remained necessary after the Local Division subsequently amended its original ruling to grant leave to appeal. The Court ruled that since the first instance proceedings evolved and rendered the appeal obsolete, the request could be withdrawn. This case highlights the dynamic nature of UPC litigation and how procedural developments can impact appellate remedies.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of confidentiality in patent litigation, specifically within a FRAND licensing context. The court provided extensive guidance on balancing the protection of sensitive information with the fundamental rights to an effective remedy and fair trial for the parties. Key takeaways include allowing access for party employees and mitigating risks through measures like barring involvement in negotiations.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal against the revocation of EP 3 498 115. This was possible because the opposing party, NJOY Netherlands B.V., consented to the withdrawal. While the proceedings were closed, the court upheld the general principle that the withdrawing appellant is considered unsuccessful and must cover the costs incurred by the successful party (NJOY) for the appeal stage.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court permitted the withdrawal of an appeal filed by VMR Products LLC against a partial revocation ruling. The key factor enabling the withdrawal was the consent of NJOY Netherlands B.V., which negated any claim that NJOY had a legitimate interest in the ongoing litigation. While the appeal was withdrawn, the Court upheld the general principle that the unsuccessful party (the appellant) must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for access to written pleadings and evidence. The court balanced the general interest in public access against concerns regarding confidentiality, personal data protection (GDPR), and copyright. Ultimately, limited access was granted to the law firm representing one party, provided all personal data was redacted.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd
This UPC appellate decision clarifies the strict application of Article 69(4) EPC regarding cost security. The court ruled that in appeal proceedings, only the appellant is considered the applicant for costs purposes. Consequently, Grundfos (the appellee/claimant in this specific context) was permitted to request security against Hefei (the appellant/respondent). This ruling reinforces the principle that cost security measures are designed to protect the party initiating the legal action from potential non-payment.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding document access in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings involving Huawei and TP-Link concerning patent EP 3 678 321. TP-Link sought access to confidential documents, which the Local Division partially granted with a deadline. Huawei appealed this order, arguing against the disclosure. The Board of Appeal ultimately granted suspensive effect to Huawei's appeal, effectively halting the document disclosure until further review.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
In a significant decision concerning patent validity in the pharmaceutical sector, the UPC Court of Appeal upheld the patent against revocation challenges brought by Sanofi. The ruling not only rejected the requests to invalidate but also established important legal precedents regarding claim interpretation and inventive step assessment within the Unified Patent Court. This case reinforces the rigorous standards for patentability while providing clarity on how therapeutic claims must be interpreted.
Amgen Inc. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
In a significant decision concerning patent validity in the pharmaceutical sector, the UPC Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Amgen against Regeneron. The court successfully defended the patent by affirming that the claims met the requirements for inventive step and sufficiency. Furthermore, the ruling provided detailed guidance on interpreting medical use claims, emphasizing that therapeutic efficacy is an inherent feature of such claims, not a matter to be proven solely from the claim text.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal admitted Apple Inc. as an intervener in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings between Ericsson and ASUS/Arvato. The core issue was whether Apple had sufficient legal interest to participate in appeals concerning the confidentiality regime for sensitive license agreements. The court affirmed that intervention is possible even when the matter relates to interim procedural orders, provided a direct legal interest can be demonstrated. This decision clarifies the scope of 'legal interest' under UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), setting a precedent for how third parties can participate in complex litigation concerning trade secrets and confidential information.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application by Apple Inc. to intervene in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings between Ericsson and ASUS/Arvato. The court ruled that Apple possessed a legal interest, allowing its admission as an intervener supporting Ericsson's request for a stricter 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the scope of intervention under UPC Rules of Procedure, confirming that interests in interim orders are sufficient grounds for participation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd.
This procedural order concerns Apple Inc.'s successful application to intervene in an appeal brought by Sun Patent Trust against Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd. The core dispute involved the scope of confidentiality regarding highly confidential information (HCI) related to licensing agreements. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple, recognizing its direct legal interest in preventing the disclosure of its sensitive business data to VIVO employees. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms available for third parties whose interests are affected by ongoing litigation.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. v.LAMA FRANCE
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an intervention application filed by LIFE 365 in a complex infringement and revocation case involving LAMA France and HPDC. The court ruled that because the main procedure had already been closed following the parties' agreement, the request for withdrawal was valid. This ruling clarifies the procedural mechanism for withdrawing interventions when the underlying litigation has concluded.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the release of security for legal costs following a settlement agreement. Ballinno B.V., who had provided €25,000 in security, successfully petitioned the court to have this amount released and transferred to Kinexon Sports GmbH. The ruling confirms that even when not explicitly covered by the rules, procedural provisions can be applied analogously to facilitate the conclusion of litigation.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
In a significant decision regarding generic drug competition, the UPC Court of Appeal granted provisional measures in favor of Boehringer Ingelheim against Zentiva. The court held that the completion of national health technology assessments and reimbursement procedures for generics can constitute an imminent infringement threat, even before market launch. This ruling reinforces the proactive nature of the UPC's jurisdiction across all member states, providing a strong deterrent against premature generic entry.
Hanshow Germany GmbH v.VusionGroup SA
In a decision concerning the revocation action against EP 3 883 277, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Hanshow Germany GmbH's request to withdraw its appeal. Since VusionGroup SA did not object and no final judgment had been reached, the procedure was closed. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to terminate proceedings amicably while ensuring cost recovery for the withdrawing party.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural requirements surrounding appeals in revocation actions. It clarifies that a separate court fee is due for an appeal against the main revocation action and any counterclaim for revocation, regardless of how the CFI combines its decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal fees to both parties following the mutual withdrawal of the underlying actions, setting important precedents on procedural costs.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had initially sought revocation of EP 2 794 928 against Harvard, which was subsequently revoked by the CFI. When Harvard appealed and later withdrew the appeal, the dispute shifted to fee reimbursement under UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP). The Court ruled that because the withdrawal occurred after the written procedure closed but before the interim procedure ended, Harvard qualified for a 40% refund rather than the maximum 60%.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
In a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990, the UPC Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs. This decision was based on the accelerated timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. The ruling highlights the practical mechanism for coordinating litigation between the UPC and national/EPO bodies when decisions are expected rapidly.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court granted a stay of revocation proceedings following an appeal by Juul Labs against a prior finding. The request was based on parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal which had been accelerated. Given that the EPO proceedings were expected to conclude rapidly relative to the scheduled UPC hearing, the court ruled in favor of granting the stay, allowing both parties to await the final outcome at the EPO.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this appeal action for revocation, the UPC Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings upon request by Juul Labs International, Inc., pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO Boards of Appeal. The court determined that since the EPO proceedings were accelerated and expected to conclude rapidly relative to the UPC's hearing schedule, staying the appeal was appropriate under R. 295(a) RoP. This decision highlights the practical mechanism for managing concurrent litigation between the Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Office.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED, Novartis AG, ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope of public access to court documents, specifically written pleadings and evidence. Stadapharm appealed a lower court's denial of access to documents from a withdrawn main infringement proceeding. The Court ultimately granted access, emphasizing that once proceedings are concluded and parties consent or do not object, the general interest in public access prevails. This ruling provides clarity on how confidentiality concerns must be balanced against transparency requirements within the UPC framework.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning appeals before the UPC's Appeals Board, 10x Genomics successfully petitioned for the refund of court fees. The decision confirmed that when an appeal is withdrawn before certain stages of proceedings are completed, the appellant is entitled to a partial reimbursement of the associated costs. This case highlights the practical application of cost recovery rules within the complex procedural framework of the UPC.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC's Board of Appeal addressed requests from 10x Genomics to recover court fees paid during three separate appeal proceedings. The court ruled in favor of 10x, granting partial refunds based on when they withdrew their appeals relative to the procedural stages (written vs. oral). This decision is significant for patent practitioners as it clarifies the application of fee refund rules under the UPC Agreement.
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.