Dismissed
at Nordic Baltic Regional Division
5 dismissed decisions from Nordic Baltic Regional Division.
Dismissed Decisions
5 cases | Page 1 of 1
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This UPC decision addressed a request for rectification concerning the allocation of legal costs following a complex merits judgment. The Claimant, Edwards Lifesciences, had achieved partial success—upholding the patent as amended while finding infringement and invalidity. The Defendants argued that the original cost order was incomplete, failing to allocate 25% of their own costs. The Court firmly rejected this argument, confirming that the initial decision provided a fair and equitable distribution of costs under Article 69 UPCA.
Viking Arm AS v.Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB
This UPC decision records the formal closure of an infringement and revocation action concerning EP3953541. The Claimant (Viking Arm AS) withdrew its infringement claim, and the Defendants (Stanley Black & Decker entities) simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. As both parties mutually agreed to the withdrawal, the Court formally closed the proceedings without needing to rule on costs or merits.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In a case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc., the Unified Patent Court proceedings were brought for infringement and revocation of EP3977921. However, both parties mutually consented to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The UPC subsequently declared the entire proceeding closed, highlighting how procedural agreements can lead to early closure in complex patent disputes.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In this UPC case, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. initiated an infringement action against Dexcom Inc., which included a counterclaim for revocation of EP3977921. However, both parties subsequently consented to the withdrawal of all actions. The Court formally declared the proceedings closed based on this mutual agreement. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing cases to be terminated amicably before substantive rulings are made. It serves as a reminder for practitioners that case closure can occur through consent withdrawals rather than litigation outcomes.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
This UPC case involved an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP3977921, related to diabetes care technology. Both the Claimant (Abbott) and the Defendants (Dexcom entities) mutually agreed to withdraw all actions. The Court formally declared the proceedings closed based on this consent, avoiding a substantive ruling on infringement or validity.
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.