Dismissed
at Milan (IT) Central Division- Section
7 dismissed decisions from Milan (IT) Central Division- Section.
Dismissed Decisions
7 cases | Page 1 of 1
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
In this UPC cost decision concerning EP 3 784 233, the Court confirmed that once a patent has been definitively revoked by the EPO's Opposition Division, any parallel revocation action before the UPC becomes redundant. The panel ordered the disposal of the proceedings and ruled on costs, awarding Neurocrine substantial compensation for its legal efforts. This case underscores the importance of monitoring opposition proceedings when pursuing invalidity claims in the UPC.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In this procedural order, the Unified Patent Court allowed Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA to withdraw a revocation action concerning EP4183412. The case involved complex cross-referencing between an infringement proceeding in Düsseldorf and the revocation action in Milan. Since both parties agreed on the withdrawal and subsequent closure of the proceedings, the court granted the request while also ordering the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the withdrawing parties.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants/counterclaimants) to withdraw its revocation action against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA concerning EP4183412. This decision was reached following mutual agreement between both parties. The Court also ordered the reimbursement of 60% of court fees paid by the withdrawing parties. This case highlights how procedural agreements and party consent can lead to the swift closure of complex patent litigation.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order concerning EP4183412, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants) and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (the defendant) to withdraw their respective revocation action and counterclaim. The parties reached an agreement that rendered the patent amendment applications moot. This case highlights how mutual consent can lead to the swift closure of complex litigation in the UPC, even when significant value is at stake.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order concerning the revocation of EP4183412, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA mutually agreed to withdraw the action and counterclaim. The UPC Central Division granted this request, effectively closing the proceedings. This case highlights how mutual consent can lead to the swift dismissal of complex patent litigation, even when significant value is at stake.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. initiated a revocation action against Dyson Technology Limited concerning European Patent EP 2043492 before the UPC Central Division Milan. However, both parties subsequently reached an agreement and signed a term sheet to settle the litigation. The Court formally allowed the withdrawal of the revocation action upon mutual consent, declaring the proceedings closed. This case highlights how procedural flexibility within the UPC allows for the amicable termination of complex patent disputes when settlement is reached.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. initiated a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492 held by Dyson Technology Limited before the UPC Central Division Milan. The parties subsequently reached an agreement and signed a term sheet to settle the dispute. Following this settlement, SharkNinja requested withdrawal of its action, which the court allowed. This decision highlights how amicable settlements can lead to the early closure of complex patent litigation within the UPC framework.
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.