Denied
at Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
6 denied decisions from Munich (DE) Central Division - Section.
Denied Decisions
6 cases | Page 1 of 1
REEL International v.Fives ECL
In this UPC revocation action, REEL International challenged EP 1 740 740 held by Fives ECL. Fives ECL attempted to dismiss the case based on lack of standing and res judicata stemming from national German court decisions. The Central Division rejected these preliminary objections, confirming that such defenses do not preclude the UPC's jurisdiction. This decision ensures the substantive merits of the patent revocation claim will be heard.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
In a significant revocation action, TCL EUROPE SAS challenged the validity of EP 3 296 274, which relates to fining boroalumino silicate glasses used in flat panel displays. The UPC Central Division dismissed the revocation request, upholding the patent's validity. The court ruled that the claims were sufficiently disclosed and did not suffer from lack of novelty or inventive step, thereby reinforcing the strict requirements for challenging granted patents within the UPC framework.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
In this procedural matter, TCL EUROPE SAS sought a two-week extension to respond to the Defence to Revocation and Application to Amend filed by Corning Incorporated in relation to EP 3 296 274. The Claimant argued that extensive technical testing related to prior art attacks necessitated more time. However, the UPC Court rejected the request, emphasizing that while complexity exists, the RoP provides sufficient time for patent cases, and the burden of proving 'special circumstances' justifying an extension rests heavily on the requesting party.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
This procedural order addressed a request by UPM-Kymmene Oyj to extend the written phase of a revocation action against International N&H Denmark ApS. The Claimant sought permission for further pleadings, arguing that new arguments made by the Defendant required a response. However, the Court rejected this request, ruling that the Claimant had not demonstrated any jeopardy to its procedural rights and that all relevant issues could be addressed at the scheduled oral hearing.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In this UPC decision concerning a revocation action, the Court addressed a request by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited to release a security deposit imposed for legal costs. Despite arguing that its financial situation had improved through acquisition by Bruker Corporation and the reversal of an injunction, the Claimant's request was rejected. The court held that as long as the initial decision is subject to appeal, the Defendant's interest in protecting potential cost recovery remains valid, regardless of the Claimant's corporate structure or solvency claims.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In a procedural ruling, NanoString Technologies Europe Limited successfully opposed President and Fellows of Harvard College's attempt to introduce late-stage written submissions and expert reports in a revocation action concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court upheld the principle of 'front-loaded character' inherent in UPC proceedings. This decision reinforces the requirement for parties to present their full case early, preventing procedural delays and ensuring efficient judicial process.
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.