Pending Decisions
31 cases | Page 1 of 2
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal order addresses a procedural request by Sibio Technology Limited seeking further written pleadings during an appeal against a revocation judgment. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that appeals must be based on the record established at the Court of First Instance. The ruling clarifies the scope of appellate proceedings under the UPC Rules of Procedure, ensuring efficiency while maintaining due process.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH S.A; ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A; ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD; BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE appealed a decision from the UPC Central Division (Paris) concerning an infringement action against various Robert Bosch entities regarding patent EP 2671766. The appeal challenges the jurisdiction and procedural language set by the initial division. This Order of Procedure confirms that the Court of Appeal will first assess the admissibility of VALEO's appeal before examining its merits, a standard procedure for managing complex UPC litigation. This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to appellate procedures within the Unified Patent Court framework.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
This entry represents a case file involving UERAN Technology LLC against Xiaomi Corporation. However, the provided text is merely an excerpt showing the signatures and dates of the involved parties' counsel and judges/participants. Consequently, no substantive information regarding the infringement claims, patent scope, or final judgment can be determined from this snippet.
Washtower IP B.V. v.Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision is a purely procedural order granting an extension of time to the Appellants (defendants from the CFI proceedings). The Appellants requested more time to prepare their grounds of appeal due to professional constraints, including mandatory attendance at an EPO hearing. The Court granted a three-working-day extension, emphasizing the principles of due process while ensuring the Respondents' interests were secured by the enforceability of the original order.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd.
This procedural order concerns Apple's successful application to intervene in an appeal brought by Sun Patent Trust against Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd. The core dispute involved the confidentiality regime applied to highly confidential information (HCI) related to licensing agreements. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, recognizing its direct legal interest in protecting its sensitive business data from disclosure to Vivo's employees. This decision is significant for IP practitioners dealing with complex litigation involving trade secrets and commercial interests within the UPC framework.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH / Cisco Systems, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application concerning the extension of deadlines in an ongoing infringement case involving Cisco and Lionra Technologies Ltd., relating to EP 2 201 740. The core issue was balancing the need for adequate time for Cisco to respond, given late access to confidential information, against the urgency required by Lionra. The Court ultimately granted a two-week extension, allowing the appeal process to continue.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addresses an appeal concerning provisional measures related to patent EP 4 249 647. The core issue was OTEC's request for further written pleadings after STEROS introduced new experimental evidence during the appellate phase. Citing principles of due process, the court allowed OTEC a limited time frame to address these newly presented facts, keeping the main appeal proceedings alive.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The provided text is merely a header and signature block from a UPC case involving Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy versus Microsoft Corporation. No substantive legal findings or outcomes are present in this excerpt. Further documentation would be required to provide an analysis of the dispute's significance for patent practitioners.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This case involves Microsoft Corporation versus Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy within the UPC framework. However, the provided snippet is merely a signature page and lacks any substantive details regarding the legal dispute or decision. Therefore, no meaningful analysis of the case's significance can be made at this time.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect in a complex infringement and revocation case. The core issue was the appeal against a CFI order requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs. Given that the main proceedings had been stayed due to the insolvency of the Easee companies, the Court found that continuing the appeals served no purpose. This ruling emphasizes the practical application of procedural rules when external events, such as corporate insolvency, impact ongoing litigation in the UPC.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical procedural issue of an action becoming 'devoid of purpose' when a claimant withdraws its urgent requests for provisional measures. The case involved Ballinno B.V., patent holder, and UEFA/Kinexon companies regarding offside detection technology. The court clarified that claimants who take the inherent risk of basing their strategy on temporary events must accept the consequence of bearing costs if the interest expires before a final ruling.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural matters in an appeal concerning penalty payments related to EP 4 238 202. The parties, despite being Danish companies represented by Danish counsel, mutually agreed to change the language of the limited-scope proceedings from Danish to English. The court granted this request, finding it convenient and fair for a quicker adjudication process. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC in adapting procedural rules based on party consent.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for provisional measures in an infringement case involving insulin pump technology. Insulet sought disclosure and injunctions against EOFlow regarding the alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327. While settlement discussions occurred, the court issued a detailed order setting out specific requests, including mandatory disclosure of origin and distribution channels from EOFlow, backed by significant periodic penalty payments for non-compliance. The ruling reinforces core legal principles governing claim construction and cost allocation within the UPC framework.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation before the court. The ruling firmly establishes that self-representation is invalid for lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are parties to the proceedings. Additionally, it reinforces the principle that corporate representatives holding high-level management roles cannot represent their companies due to independence requirements. The court provided a temporary grace period of 14 days for the involved parties to rectify these procedural defects by appointing proper legal counsel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Meril GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation in the Unified Patent Court, specifically concerning public access requests and party standing. The court ruled that self-representation is invalid for both lawyers/patent attorneys acting as parties and corporate officers holding high-level management roles. This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for legal independence under the UPC Agreement. The decision did not resolve the underlying merits of the case but instead issued an exceptional order, granting the involved parties a short window to appoint proper representatives and remedy procedural defects.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for intervention by MediaTek, the manufacturer of the processors at issue (Dimensity). The appeal concerned a procedural dispute over access to confidential information regarding processor architecture. The court found that MediaTek possessed a direct and present legal interest in protecting this proprietary information, despite Xiaomi being the party who initially submitted it. This ruling reinforces the rights of technology owners to participate in confidentiality disputes related to their core intellectual property within UPC proceedings.
Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural issues arising from an appeal challenging provisional measures against Sumi Agro Limited. The core dispute involved the alleged infringement by Syngenta using different versions of a product named 'Kagura' (2023 vs 2024). The court ultimately allowed Syngenta to introduce new evidence detailing the characteristics and purchase of the 2024 product, finding that the late submission was justified. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in allowing relevant factual developments during appeal proceedings.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This appeal concerns a dispute over the scope of a preliminary injunction issued against Magna by the CFI, specifically regarding whether the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was correctly exempted from supply obligations. Magna sought suspensive effect to prevent enforcement on this specific model while its appeal proceeded. The Court of Appeal Standing Judge granted an interim order suspending the relevant part of the injunction, recognizing Magna’s interest in maintaining the status quo until a full panel decision is reached.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural point regarding the notification of default judgment risks. The court clarified that when ordering a party to provide security for costs, the warning about potential default proceedings (under R.355 RoP) does not need to be embedded in the main operative text of the order. Instead, it can be communicated through a separate judicial order. This ruling provides clarity on procedural requirements within UPC actions, particularly concerning cost security and its implications for case progression.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural point concerning the notification requirements under Rule R.158.4 RoP regarding security for costs. The court clarified that even if an initial order specifies a deadline for providing security, the warning about potential default judgment (under R.355 RoP) does not need to be embedded within that original operative text. Instead, a separate notification order is sufficient to ensure procedural fairness and compliance.
Simulity Labs Limited v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the confidentiality of evidence (Exhibit 4) in an ongoing infringement action involving ARM and ICPillar. The Court rejected ICPillar's request to keep the exhibit confidential, prioritizing transparency for the main proceedings. Crucially, the court balanced this by granting both parties opportunities to amend their respective statements based on the newly available information, thereby addressing concerns about equality of arms.
Simulity Labs Limited v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application concerning the confidentiality of evidence (Exhibit 4) in an ongoing infringement action involving ARM and ICPillar. The court rejected ICPillar's request to keep the information confidential, deeming the justification insufficient. Consequently, the unredacted version of the exhibit was made available to the Respondents, allowing them time to amend their pleadings.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a stay of proceedings in a patent revocation action. Mala Technologies, the patent proprietor, sought to halt the main revocation case pending decisions on preliminary objections and parallel national appeals. The Court ultimately denied this request, citing that the interests of the defendant (Nokia Technology) in obtaining a swift validity decision outweighed the claimant's interest in cost avoidance. This ruling reinforces the principle that UPC proceedings should proceed unhindered by procedural appeals unless exceptional circumstances are met.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal order addressed a procedural request by Volkswagen AG to submit additional written pleadings in an appeal concerning security for costs. The court found the request sufficiently reasoned, allowing Volkswagen to correct facts presented by Network System Technologies LLC. (NST). This decision highlights the flexibility of the UPC's rules regarding the exchange of evidence and arguments during appellate proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the exchange of written pleadings in an ongoing infringement appeal. Audi AG successfully requested permission to submit additional statements, arguing that the opposing party, NST, had misrepresented facts during the proceedings. The court granted this request, allowing both parties more time to present their arguments before the substantive issues are decided.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request from Volkswagen AG seeking permission to submit additional written pleadings in an appeal concerning security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC. The court confirmed that under the Rules of Procedure, parties can lodge reasoned requests to exchange further submissions if necessary to correct facts or clarify issues. By allowing this request, the Court ensured all relevant factual arguments could be presented before closing the written phase.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request regarding the exchange of written pleadings during an appeal concerning security for costs. Audi AG successfully argued that it needed to correct certain facts submitted by NST, and the Court granted permission for additional submissions. This ruling reinforces the flexibility within the UPC's Rules of Procedure (RoP), allowing parties to refine their arguments even late in the written phase if a reasoned request is made.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal order addresses a procedural motion in an appeal concerning security for costs. Volkswagen AG successfully requested permission to submit additional written pleadings, arguing the need to correct facts presented by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The court granted this request, allowing both parties to exchange further statements before closing the written procedure. This highlights the UPC's willingness to maintain a dynamic procedural environment to ensure all relevant factual and legal points are addressed.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the exchange of written pleadings during an appeal concerning security for costs. Audi AG successfully petitioned the court to allow it to submit additional facts and evidence, arguing that the initial proceedings contained factual errors by the opposing party, NST. The court granted this request, allowing both parties further time to refine their arguments before closing the written phase.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural challenge concerning the timeliness of an appeal lodged by AIM Sport Development AG against a CFI decision that dismissed its actions. The dispute centers on whether the 15-day deadline set out in R.224.1(b) RoP applies to appeals seeking provisional measures (like preliminary injunctions under Art. 62 UPCA). While AIM sought to overturn the dismissal based on competence, the Court has paused proceedings to determine if the appeal itself is procedurally admissible due to a missed deadline.
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.