Granted Decisions
51 cases | Page 2 of 2
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter regarding the refund of court fees paid by 10x Genomics during three separate appeal proceedings against Vizgen. The court ruled in favor of 10x, granting partial refunds based on when each respective appeal was withdrawn. This case highlights the practical application of fee refund rules within the UPC framework for parties who withdraw their appeals.
Hanshow Technology Co, Ltd v.VusionGroup SA
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural disputes regarding costs and the validity of an appeal against a cost determination. VusionGroup argued that Hanshow failed to meet formal requirements for filing the appeal (lack of separate grounds/statement) and defaulted on court fees. The Court ruled in favor of Hanshow, confirming that the initial application for admission contained sufficient detail, thus satisfying procedural requirements for appeals concerning costs. This decision clarifies the flexible nature of procedural rules when challenging cost orders within the UPC.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
In this procedural matter before the UPC Court of Appeal, Network System Technologies LLC sought the release of substantial security deposits previously ordered by the Munich Local Division. The security had been required to cover potential legal costs related to infringement proceedings against Volkswagen AG. Crucially, NTS subsequently withdrew its infringement actions at the lower court level. The Court of Appeal agreed that with the withdrawal of the main claims, the basis for maintaining the security vanished. This decision provides a clear procedural precedent regarding the timely release of funds when underlying litigation is terminated by the claimant.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of infringement actions. Network System Technologies LLC had deposited substantial funds to cover legal costs incurred by Audi AG during the proceedings. Since NTS subsequently withdrew its claims and closed the case at the Munich Local Division, the Court of Appeal granted the application for the full return of these security amounts. This ruling provides clarity on the procedural mechanism for releasing financial guarantees when litigation concludes prematurely.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal sided with Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., granting an injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The court set aside the initial CFI decision which had found potential added matter in the patent claims. This case highlights the high bar for obtaining preliminary relief while also providing clarity on how general injunctions can be justified based on a single type of infringement, making it crucial reading for medical device IP practitioners.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (collectively 'the Abbott companies')
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal granted DexCom Inc.'s request to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and associated companies. This withdrawal followed mutual consent from both parties, allowing the court to declare all proceedings closed. The decision is significant as it reinforces the flexibility of the UPC system regarding case closure when parties agree, while also providing a clear procedural path for fee reimbursement.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Board of Appeal addressed requests to withdraw an infringement suit and associated revocation counterclaims. The Court ruled that such withdrawals are permissible during appellate proceedings as long as no final judgment has become legally binding. This decision provides clarity on the timing constraints for withdrawing claims under Rule 265 VerfO and confirms the procedural effect of withdrawal, including the refund of court fees.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters concerning the withdrawal of a patent infringement claim and associated revocation counterclaims. The Court of Appeal confirmed that parties can withdraw their claims during the appellate phase, provided no final judgment has become legally binding. By allowing the withdrawal, the court terminated the main proceedings and granted Avago a refund of 60% of its appeal court fees. This ruling provides clarity on the timing and procedural requirements for withdrawing actions within the UPC system.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the translation requirement for evidence in appeal proceedings. Syngenta requested that a specific document, Exhibit FF25, not be translated into English. The court reviewed the relevant Rules of Procedure (RoP) and ultimately granted the request. The ruling clarifies the discretionary power of the Court of Appeal regarding language requirements when parties submit documents during appellate stages.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural ruling concerning the protection of confidential information, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Microsoft's request to keep certain details within Exhibit BP 01 private. This decision reinforces the court's ability to manage sensitive commercial data during litigation. The ruling clarifies the distinction between confidentiality for parties involved in the dispute and restrictions against public disclosure.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case. The appeal sought to change the language from German to English, based on the patent's grant language and the defendant's operational context. The court ultimately sided with the defendant (Google), establishing that while claimants have a right to choose the language, this right is balanced against the principle of fairness for the defendant. This ruling provides important guidance on how procedural rights interact with the need to ensure equitable litigation in the UPC.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Apple and Ona Patents SL. The appeal sought to change the language from German (the patent's granting language) to English, based on the multinational nature of Apple and the technical field's common use of English. The court ultimately sided with Apple, finding that maintaining the German language would disproportionately disadvantage the defendant, thereby upholding the principle of fairness over the claimant's initial choice.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Ballinno B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an appeal proceeding concerning EP 1 944 067. The Kinexon companies and UEFA successfully argued that the respondent, Ballinno B.V., lacked sufficient financial means to guarantee the reimbursement of legal expenses. Consequently, the court mandated Ballinno to provide € 25,000 in security for costs. This ruling reinforces the UPC's ability to manage litigation risk by ensuring that parties with questionable financial standing can be required to secure their potential cost obligations.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the effective date of service for an appeal statement in a pharmaceutical patent case (EP 3167888). The core issue was whether direct communication between parties via specialized electronic mailboxes ('beA') could count as valid service. The court definitively ruled that only service effected by the Registry through the official CMS is considered effective under UPC rules.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this procedural case before the UPC Court of Appeal, 10x Genomics appealed an order from the CFI regarding provisional measures against Curio Bioscience. After requesting withdrawal and receiving consent from Curio, the Court granted the request. The ruling clarifies that even when an appeal is withdrawn by mutual agreement, the withdrawing party (10x) must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, setting a clear precedent for cost allocation in UPC appellate practice.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the procedural application of confidentiality rules (R. 262A RoP) during appeal proceedings. The court held that if information was already protected by a CFI order, parties do not need to file redundant requests for protection in the appellate phase. This streamlines litigation by preventing duplication of protective measures.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl; SCHNELL S.p.A.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to an appeal filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against an earlier decision. The original decision had revoked provisional measures for evidence preservation and ordered the return of gathered evidence. The court ruled that allowing immediate enforcement would severely undermine the Appellant's ability to successfully challenge the order. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the judicial discretion available under UPC rules to prevent procedural outcomes from becoming moot.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the time limit for lodging an appeal against an order from the Court of First Instance (CFI). The appellant, AIM Sport Development AG, argued that the CFI's own 'Information about appeal' stated a two-month deadline, even though the strict rule (R.224.1(b) RoP) mandated only 15 days for certain orders. Applying the principle of legitimate expectations, the Court of Appeal sided with AIM, finding the appeal admissible. This ruling highlights the importance of procedural fairness and how courts must interpret rules when CFI guidance creates a reasonable expectation.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 697 391, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Curio Bioscience's request to change the court language from German to English. The decision emphasized that fairness is paramount when considering such changes, particularly weighing the position of the defendant (10x Genomics). This case highlights the practical application of procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust proceedings based on linguistic and operational needs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the effective date of service in an appeal. The case involved Xiaomi, which sought clarification on when it was formally served with the appeal documents due to technical glitches within the Case Management System (CMS). The court found that conflicting information and CMS misconfiguration led to confusion regarding the actual delivery date. Consequently, the Court ruled that April 3, 2024, must be recognized as the correct service date, ensuring Xiaomi's right to respond by the extended deadline.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a complex procedural matter concerning the admissibility of discretionary review against an order issued by a Judge Rapporteur. Netgear sought to challenge the JR's refusal to refer a preliminary objection decision to the panel for review. The court ruled that the request was admissible, allowing the appeal to proceed against the JR's ruling on admissibility itself. This case clarifies the procedural pathways available under the UPC Rules when challenging initial case management 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.