Partially Granted
60 partially granted decisions from Luxembourg (LU).
Partially Granted Decisions
60 cases | Page 2 of 2
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural matters, specifically the requirements for representation and public access to court documents. The court ruled that an individual holding a high-level management position cannot represent their company in UPC proceedings, emphasizing due process considerations. Additionally, the ruling clarifies that applications seeking access to the register generally do not qualify for cost compensation under the UPC rules. This decision is significant for practitioners as it reinforces strict procedural requirements regarding representation and sets clear boundaries on recoverable costs related to public disclosure requests.
Meril GmbH v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent 1 (Helsingborg)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues, specifically concerning public access to the register and the rules governing representation in court. The court established that an individual holding a high-level management position within a party cannot simultaneously act as their authorized representative before the UPC. Additionally, it firmly ruled against awarding compensation for costs related to requests for public access to pleadings, setting clear boundaries on procedural expenses.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict rules governing access to written pleadings and evidence in ongoing proceedings. The court ruled that while blanket requests are inadmissible, immediate access can be granted if a member of the public demonstrates a direct interest in the patent's validity—as Nicoventures did due to its prior opposition efforts. Crucially, this access is conditional, preventing the recipient from filing or distributing the documents with other judicial instances like the EPO Boards of Appeal until the UPC appeal concludes.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Juul Labs International Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for access to written pleadings and evidence in parallel proceedings concerning patent validity. The court granted immediate access to specific documents requested by Nicoventures, recognizing its direct interest as an opponent in the EPO. However, this access was strictly conditioned: Nicoventures could not file or distribute these materials with other courts, like the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the UPC appeal concluded. This ruling highlights the Court's power to balance transparency with procedural integrity.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope and conditions for public access to written pleadings in UPC proceedings, specifically concerning a party's interest in parallel EPO appeal proceedings. The court granted immediate access to specific documents requested by Nicoventures Trading Limited, recognizing its direct stake in the patent's validity. Crucially, this access was conditioned on Nicoventures agreeing not to file or distribute these materials with other courts, such as the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the UPC case is finalized.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a procedural motion regarding deadlines in an appeal case involving ILME and Phoenix Contact, concerning patent EP 3 646 825. The court was asked to grant a three-week extension for one party's reply brief. Ultimately, the court granted only a minimal three-day extension, emphasizing the need for efficient proceedings while maintaining procedural balance.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited
In a significant ruling on provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal affirmed the validity and infringement likelihood of EP 2 152 073 concerning herbicide compositions. The court confirmed that the balance of interests favored granting an injunction against Sumi Agro. Furthermore, it clarified procedural aspects, specifically rejecting the requirement for Syngenta to provide security for enforcement, which is a key relief for patent holders seeking immediate protection.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Respondent 1 / SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a critical procedural issue concerning representation before the court. The Court ruled that self-representation is invalid for lawyers and European Patent Attorneys when they are parties to the case, reinforcing strict due process requirements. Additionally, it clarified limitations on corporate representatives acting for legal entities if they lack independence. Consequently, the Court did not dismiss the access request but instead granted a 14-day grace period for the respondents to appoint proper authorized counsel.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the scope of confidential information protection in an infringement case involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi. The court overturned a previous decision that denied access to Daedalus's US attorneys, recognizing their trustworthiness and necessity for effective litigation. This decision clarifies the boundaries of R. 262A RoP, confirming that professional assistants outside the strict definition of UPC representatives can be granted necessary access.
Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
In this UPC decision, Amazon sought the confidential classification and protection of sensitive commercial documents related to its licensing negotiations with Nokia. The Court partially granted the request, establishing a provisional order that specific information—such as negotiation timelines, license offers, and business models—must be treated confidentially under Article 58 EPC. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting trade secrets within litigation while maintaining transparency where possible.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional question: whether the Unified Patent Court can hear an independent claim for damages following a successful national infringement judgment. The court affirmed that since the damage claim is rooted in patent infringement, it falls under the scope of Article 32(1)(a) EPC. This ruling provides significant clarity and predictability for patentees seeking to enforce their rights across the UPC system.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding security for costs in an ongoing infringement action involving TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR and Texas Instruments. The claimant challenged the initial order, arguing that the judge-rapporteur lacked competence to issue such a binding case management order and simultaneously deny leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that since security for costs is a case management matter, only the full panel can decide on leave to appeal. Consequently, the original order was revoked, and the case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an appeal. DISH and Sling sought full reimbursement due to alleged errors in procedural instructions, but the Court ultimately granted only partial relief. The ruling confirms that even when appealing, parties are entitled to 60% fee reimbursement upon withdrawal, provided they meet the formal requirements under the Rules of Procedure.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
This appeal before the UPC Court of Appeal concerned an application for suspensive effect regarding a preliminary injunction issued by the CFI against Magna. The core dispute centered on whether a specific BMW model, the 2 Series Gran Coupé, was correctly exempted from the injunction's scope. The Court of Appeal sided with Magna, finding that the exclusion was arbitrary and disproportionate given the evidence of production plans for this vehicle. Consequently, the court suspended the effect of the injunction specifically for the 2 Series Gran Coupé model.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the scope of judicial competence, specifically whether a judge-rapporteur can unilaterally impose security for costs and deny leave to appeal. The court ruled that while case management orders are generally not directly appealable, the underlying issue raised an important access to justice question about judicial authority. By allowing limited leave to appeal on this procedural point, the Court ensured that fundamental questions of procedure could be addressed by a panel.
Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
In a significant procedural ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to an order issued by the CFI. The dispute involved Magna International and Valeo Electrification regarding patent EP 3 320 602, which covers technology used in BMW models. Magna successfully argued that the original injunction contained a clear error—an 'obvious slip'—by omitting a specific model from its exceptions. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to correct procedural errors and prioritize maintaining the status quo when such errors threaten fundamental fairness.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical point regarding the transitional regime: whether prior national court proceedings can block an effective withdrawal of an opt-out. The Court held that Art. 83(4) UPCA only restricts actions brought during the transitional period, meaning pre-transitional litigation does not invalidate a subsequent opt-out withdrawal. This ruling provides significant clarity and relief for patent holders seeking to utilize the UPC system after initially opting out.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical point regarding the transitional regime: whether prior national court proceedings can block an opt-out withdrawal. The Court held that only actions brought during the transitional period count against the ability to withdraw, thereby validating AIM's attempt to re-enter the UPC system for its patent. This ruling significantly eases the burden on patentees seeking to utilize the UPC after having previously engaged with national courts.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning an infringement case involving Philips and Belkin regarding inductive power transfer technology (EP 2 867 997). The court ruled on the conditions necessary to grant a stay of execution, emphasizing that the application must be self-sufficient for preliminary review. Crucially, the decision also clarified the legal limitations on holding company directors liable as secondary infringers under EPC Article 63, while ultimately granting the stay against specific individuals.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In this appeal concerning security for costs, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the financial vulnerability of a patent enforcement entity (NST) versus a large corporate defendant (Volkswagen). The court ruled that while the relative size of the parties is not a determining factor, the requesting party must provide concrete evidence of an actual risk of non-recoverability or unenforceability. Consequently, the previous order was set aside, and NST was ordered to post security for costs in specific amounts.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a complex jurisdictional and procedural issue concerning the interplay between national revocation proceedings (in Germany) and an action before the Unified Patent Court. The court confirmed that while the parties in the German and UPC actions were distinct, necessitating the rejection of Mala's primary request to decline jurisdiction, it ultimately granted the crucial auxiliary request for a stay. This ruling provides significant guidance on when procedural fairness requires the UPC to pause proceedings pending outcomes in parallel national litigation.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical issue of security for costs in complex patent litigation. The court ruled that while the burden is on the requesting party to prove financial risk, the relative wealth of the parties is not determinative. It affirmed that a special purpose entity's business model (like NST) cannot be unfairly penalized by demanding excessive security. This ruling provides important guidance on balancing procedural fairness with cost recovery in UPC proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning provisional measures granted by the CFI. The core issue was whether the CFI's finding that Ireland was a Contracting Member State justified granting the injunction there. The court ruled this reasoning was manifestly erroneous, as Ireland had not ratified the UPCA. Consequently, it partially granted the request for suspensive effect only regarding the Irish territory.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural issues surrounding evidence preservation and inspection under Article 60 UPCA. The court established that the disclosure of preserved evidence is not automatic; it requires balancing the applicant's need for information against the respondent's right to protect confidential trade secrets. Crucially, the ruling clarified the timing mechanism for revocation of measures, linking the deadline to when the evidence is actually disclosed or access is denied. This decision provides vital guidance on managing confidentiality in preliminary UPC proceedings.
ARM Limited v.ICPillar LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application concerning service and confidentiality during appeal proceedings related to infringement of EP 3000239. Although the court confirmed that ARM was technically served with ICPillar's statement of appeal, it acknowledged technical difficulties preventing ARM from accessing the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy). Consequently, the Court granted an extension for ARM to file its response, ensuring due process is maintained despite CMS issues.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appellate decision addresses procedural law concerning the review of a Rapporteur's decisions, specifically regarding an 'R.20.2-Unterrichtung' (notification that an opposition should be heard in the main proceedings). The court found that the Rapporteur improperly rejected an application for judicial review (R.333.1 VerfO) on their own authority. This ruling clarifies the strict procedural requirements for challenging a Rapporteur's actions, emphasizing that certain discretionary decisions must be subject to review by the full judicial body.
NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural correction in an ongoing provisional measures case involving NanoString Technologies and 10x Genomics concerning EP 4108782. The core ruling clarifies the established principles for interpreting European patent claims under Article 69 EPC. It emphasizes that interpretation must be holistic, considering the description and drawings alongside the literal claim language to ensure a balanced outcome between inventor protection and third-party certainty.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appeal addressed a procedural dispute concerning the deadline for a defendant to respond when a claimant expands their lawsuit by adding a new patent. The court emphasized the fundamental principle of due process, holding that defendants must receive equivalent defense opportunities as if a completely new claim had been filed. By overturning the lower court's determination of the start date, the UPC ensured procedural fairness and set a clear, extended deadline for the defendant.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appellate decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning claim expansion in ongoing infringement litigation. Netgear challenged the lower court's determination of the response deadline for Huawei after EP 3678321 was added to the case. The Appellate Court affirmed the principle that defendants must receive full defense rights, but corrected the start date of the period, ensuring procedural fairness and clarity. This ruling provides important guidance on how courts must manage deadlines when expanding patent claims mid-litigation.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH; Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.; Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the service of claims when supporting annexes are submitted later than the initial Statement of Claim. The court affirmed that a claim can be validly served even if it refers to future annexes, provided the core statement is complete enough for the defendant to assert their rights. Crucially, the ruling established that failure by the claimant to comply with simultaneous submission rules (Rule 13.2 RoP) automatically entitles the defendant to an extension of procedural deadlines equal to the delay period.
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.