Partially Granted
60 partially granted decisions from Luxembourg (LU).
Partially Granted Decisions
60 cases | Page 1 of 2
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involved multiple appeals concerning infringement and international jurisdiction related to a juice extractor patent. The court addressed complex procedural issues regarding how parties establish their choice of forum under Brussels Ia Regulation, while also reviewing the merits of the claims. Ultimately, the appeal decisions were partially set aside, confirming certain jurisdictional limitations but maintaining the financial value of the dispute at €675,000.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal concerning provisional measures in a dispute over hair care appliances. The court upheld the injunction against Dreame's products but clarified key legal principles regarding claim construction and the scope of injunctive relief. Specifically, it ruled that infringement risk extends beyond previously committed acts, strengthening the basis for broad interim protection.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson successfully appealed a provisional measures decision against Dreame's hair styling products before the UPC Court of Appeal. The court upheld the injunction and extended its scope to cover newer versions of Dreame's curling attachments, confirming that infringement is sufficient grounds for preventing future unauthorized use. This ruling provides clarity on how courts interpret claim features in relation to physical configurations and reinforces the broad application of provisional measures.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This Court of Appeal decision addresses a complex provisional measures application concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought an injunction against Dreame International and Eurep for infringing EP 3 119 235 with its multi-functional hairdryers. While the court granted the requested provisional measures within the UPC Territory, it simultaneously referred key jurisdictional questions regarding Spain and the role of the authorized representative (Eurep) to the CJEU. This highlights the Court's careful balancing act between immediate injunctive relief and ensuring legal certainty across different EU jurisdictions.
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a legal representative firm, seeking public access to documents from pending infringement proceedings (Boehringer v. Zentiva). The court established strict criteria for such requests, emphasizing that they must be highly specified and not based on relevance criteria set by the applicant. While acknowledging the general interest in transparency, the Court ultimately granted limited access only to specific redacted pleadings, balancing this against the need to protect sensitive commercial information.
Gowling WLG v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited (jointly 'Sumi Agro')
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for public access to case files, specifically concerning the scope and specificity required when requesting documents. Gowling WLG sought access to various pleadings from an appeal proceeding (UPC_CoA_523/2024). The court partially granted the request, allowing access to specified written submissions after redaction of personal data. However, the broad and non-specific nature of the exhibit request was rejected, setting a clear procedural boundary for document disclosure in UPC proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This UPC appellate decision involved a complex interplay between patent infringement and revocation proceedings. Although the respondent successfully argued for the invalidity of EP 2 548 648, leading to the dismissal of the infringement claim, the court still awarded the claimant a lump-sum damages payment of €20,000. The ruling also provided important procedural guidance on when an appellate court must render a final judgment in both revocation and infringement cases following an appeal.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for confidentiality concerning information exchanged during infringement litigation. The court ruled that once a party provides information without restriction under a court order, the recipient loses the basis to restrict its use. This clarifies the scope of confidentiality protections in the UPC, emphasizing that specific requests (R. 262A RoP) are needed when disclosure is mandated by the court.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the protection of confidential information in patent litigation, specifically concerning Standard Essential Patent (SEP) licensing agreements. The court established a tailored confidentiality regime that balances the need for secrecy with the parties' right to a fair trial. A key takeaway is the nuanced approach to access rights, recognizing the necessity of employee involvement while mitigating potential harm through specific contractual restrictions on negotiations.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope and proportionality of confidentiality measures in complex patent litigation involving FRAND licensing. The court ruled on access rights for internal staff, affirming that employees are generally essential for a party's effective representation, even if it slightly compromises strict confidentiality regimes. Crucially, the ruling also provided a mechanism to protect third parties by imposing temporary bars on negotiations when confidential license data is involved.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the protection of confidential information in complex SEP litigation involving Ericsson and ASUS. The court meticulously crafted a confidentiality regime for sensitive license agreements, balancing the need to protect trade secrets against the parties' fundamental rights to a fair trial. A key innovation was the imposition of a five-year non-negotiation bar on party employees who gain access to these confidential licensing details, providing robust protection while maintaining procedural fairness.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, Juul Labs successfully sought permission to withdraw its appeal against a revocation judgment. The court granted the withdrawal based on the consent of the opposing party, NJOY. While Juul Labs received a 60% refund of its court fees, it was ultimately ordered to cover the legal costs incurred by NJOY during the appeal process. This case highlights the procedural requirements for withdrawing appeals and the general rule regarding cost allocation in UPC litigation.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application to withdraw an appeal in a patent revocation case involving vaping technology. The court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal after NJOY consented, closing the appellate proceedings. Despite allowing the withdrawal, the court applied standard cost rules, ruling that Juul Labs, as the appellant who withdrew, was ultimately unsuccessful and must cover NJOY's legal costs for the appeal.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a claim for damages and costs arising from patent infringement concerning textile machinery. The court confirmed that while the respondent was liable for infringement, it rejected the claimant's request for provisional damages based on reputational harm due to insufficient evidence. The ruling highlights the strict evidentiary requirements needed to prove non-economic damages in UPC proceedings.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision focused heavily on procedural aspects within an application for provisional measures concerning patent EP 3 732 827. The parties, Barco N.V. and Yealink, contested the competence of the local division and the initial costs order. While the core infringement dispute was not decided, the Court provided clear guidance on divisional competence under Art. 33 UPCA and established a precedent for interim cost awards in provisional measures cases. The ruling is significant for practitioners as it clarifies how courts should approach jurisdictional challenges and the practical application of interim relief mechanisms within the UPC framework.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for provisional measures, focusing heavily on procedural issues such as competence and the awarding of interim costs. The court clarified that internal division competence within the UPC is distinct from EU regulations like Brussels I Recast. Crucially, it established a practical guideline for interim cost awards in these urgent proceedings, setting a precedent for how parties can recover expenses pending final decisions.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a cost guarantee in an ongoing infringement appeal case involving textile technology. The court ruled that while the respondent's argument to exclude previously awarded first-instance costs was rejected, it set a specific financial requirement. Bhagat Textile Engineers must provide a €19,000 guarantee to Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG to proceed with the appeal.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for implementing penalty clauses under the Rules of Procedure. The case involved an appeal concerning cost decisions related to non-compliance penalties set by a Local Division panel. The court reinforced that penalty orders must be explicitly stated in the operative part of a decision, not just mentioned in the grounds. This ruling provides crucial guidance for practitioners on how to structure and enforce compliance obligations within UPC proceedings.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the patent and ordered Belkin to recall, remove, and destroy infringing products. Crucially, the ruling provided significant legal guidance on interpreting 'offering' in commercial contexts and defined the specific conditions under which company directors can be held liable for patent infringement.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited
In this appellate decision, the UPC addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the patent's scope while issuing a significant injunction requiring Belkin to recall and destroy infringing products. Crucially, the ruling provided detailed guidance on liability, particularly limiting the personal responsibility of company directors unless they actively participate in or knowingly facilitate infringement.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the core infringement finding, ordering Belkin to recall and destroy infringing products under Art. 64 EPGÜ. Crucially, the ruling provided significant guidance on interpreting 'offering' in commercial contexts and established clear legal boundaries regarding the liability of corporate directors for patent infringement.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In a significant decision regarding patent scope, the UPC Board of Appeal invalidated key claims of EP 3 926 698. The core finding centered on the doctrine of impermissible expansion, holding that a claim cannot extend beyond what was clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application documents. This ruling reinforces strict interpretation requirements for divisional applications, emphasizing that the scope must be traceable to both the initial filing and the parent PCT application. For patent practitioners, this case serves as a strong reminder of the critical importance of precise drafting and disclosure during the prosecution phase.
expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In this UPC appeal, expert klein GmbH successfully challenged the validity of EP 3 926 698 held by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The court ruled that Claim 1 was invalid because it contained an impermissible extension of subject matter. Specifically, features not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application or PCT filing were deemed outside the scope of protection. This decision reinforces strict interpretation principles regarding claim scope derived from initial patent disclosures, a critical point for IP strategy.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for confidentiality regarding technical data and measurement reports in an infringement case involving traffic signaling systems. The court confirmed that certain non-obvious product properties qualify as trade secrets under Article 58 EPC, provided they are kept confidential. While the court granted protection to specific documents submitted by Strabag, it rejected broader requests from both Swarco (the claimant) and Chainzone (the assisting party), setting clear boundaries on information disclosure in UPC proceedings.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an infringement action concerning solar cell technology. The court ultimately granted the application, requiring the claimant (JingAo) to provide a deposit of € 200,000. The ruling emphasizes that while enforcement difficulties exist in non-EU jurisdictions like China, these do not automatically defeat the need for security; rather, the applicant must demonstrate legitimate concerns regarding enforceability.
Appellant v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request to withdraw an appeal concerning patent infringement proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal because the respondent did not object, thereby concluding the appellate phase. Crucially, while the appellant lost the procedural battle and must cover the costs incurred by the respondent, the specific monetary claim for damages was rejected, mandating that cost determination proceed via a separate procedure.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following a settlement in a revocation action. Tandem Diabetes, which had appealed a dismissal by the Central Division Paris, successfully applied for a refund of 60% of its appeal costs. The ruling confirms that if an action is settled before the written procedure concludes, the party responsible for the initial costs is entitled to this partial reimbursement under UPC Rules of Procedure.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Easee Holding B.V., and managing director
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect related to a security for costs order issued by the CFI in an infringement action. The court found that the initial order contained manifest errors, specifically regarding the legal basis for requiring security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA. By granting suspensive effect to both Easee's appeals, the UPC ensured that the status quo would be maintained pending a full review of the underlying issues.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a penalty payment case stemming from an initial disclosure order in an infringement action involving Philips and Belkin regarding patent EP 2 867 997. The court confirmed the validity of imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance, even if compliance is eventually achieved late. Crucially, it reinforced the obligation to disclose manufacturer prices under Art. 67 EPC, providing clear guidance on procedural enforcement and disclosure requirements in UPC litigation.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent 1 (Helsingborg)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural issues concerning public access to court documents and representation requirements. The court ruled that an individual holding a high-level management position cannot simultaneously act as their own representative in UPC proceedings, emphasizing due process. Additionally, the ruling clarified that cost compensation is generally not available for requests made under R. 262.1(b) RoP regarding public access to the register.
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.