Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
97 cases · page 1 of 4
Showing 1–29Emporia UK and Ireland Limited v.Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd.
In this significant UPC decision, the court granted a revocation action against an LED patent (EP 3 926 698 B1) due to added subject-matter. While some claims were already invalidated in parallel proceedings, the UPC confirmed the invalidity of several remaining dependent claims. The ruling provides important guidance on how partial revocation affects dependent claims and addresses procedural hurdles related to amendments following complex litigation.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing patent litigation when parties reach an out-of-court settlement. IMI Hydronic Engineering sought to revoke EP3812870, while Belparts counterclaimed for infringement. The Court granted permission for both actions to be withdrawn, effectively closing the proceedings. The ruling emphasizes that if no final decision has been rendered and all parties agree on the withdrawal without objection, the court will permit the case closure under Rule 265.1 RoP.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
In this case, IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH initiated a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning patent EP3812870. While the proceedings progressed through interim conferences and even faced potential oral hearings, both parties ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Court of First Instance subsequently permitted the withdrawal of both the revocation action and the infringement counterclaim, declaring the case closed. This decision highlights the practical reality that settlements often supersede ongoing litigation in the UPC framework.
Veolia Proprete v.Tiru
In a complex multi-procedural case, the UPC Central Division addressed challenges to the validity of EP 3178578 B1, which covers waste incineration technology. Although the primary request for full revocation was denied, the Tribunal allowed the patent to be maintained in a modified form based on subsidiary claims. This decision highlights the court's willingness to balance legal certainty with technical innovation by allowing targeted modifications rather than outright cancellation.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC decision, the Central Division addressed a challenge to the standing of the claimant in a revocation action. The court firmly established that for an independent interest in revocation proceedings, the claimant's own business activity is paramount, regardless of corporate group structures or control relationships. This ruling clarifies the scope of 'party identity' under EPC Art. 33(4) within the UPC framework, rejecting arguments based solely on parent-subsidiary links.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. v.American Wave Machines, Inc.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Central Division granted a decision by default against American Wave Machines, Inc., after they failed to file a defense in a revocation action concerning EP 2 728 089. The subsequent substantive analysis confirmed the Claimant's arguments, leading to the partial revocation of Claim 1. This case underscores the strict procedural requirements within the UPC and demonstrates how default judgments can be utilized when defendants fail to engage with proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a significant revocation proceeding, the UPC Central Division ruled against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, declaring European patent EP 2 671 173 revoked. The patent covered an innovative system for location-aware internet searching while walking. The Court found that the claims lacked inventive step over existing prior art, leading to the complete invalidation of the patent. This decision underscores the rigorous standards applied by the UPC in assessing novelty and inventiveness.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Das Europäische Patentamt (EPA)
This UPC decision addressed an appeal by PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG against the European Patent Office's refusal to grant unitary effect for EP 3 327 608. The core dispute centered on whether the requirement that a patent must be granted in all participating member states could be interpreted flexibly, especially concerning later-joining members like Malta. The UPC ultimately upheld the EPA's decision, emphasizing the strict legal requirements governing the unitary effect and rejecting arguments based on fundamental rights or administrative discretion.
Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyages v.Robert Bosch Doo Bograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This UPC procedural order addressed a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction in an infringement case involving Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyages against various Robert Bosch entities. The court rejected the argument that the Central Division had universal competence due to cross-border infringements and instead applied Article 33(1)(b) of the UPC Agreement, transferring the case to the local division of Düsseldorf. This decision highlights the strict application of jurisdictional rules when defendants are domiciled within contracting states.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
In a procedural order concerning revocation and infringement actions, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed IMI Hydronic Engineering's request for Belparts Group to provide security for costs. IMI argued that Belparts was economically vulnerable, citing losses in 2023. However, the court dismissed the request, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests on the applicant. The decision highlights the strict evidentiary requirements necessary to successfully obtain security for costs proceedings within the UPC framework.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case, ALD France S.A.S challenged the validity of EP 3 083 107 B1 against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG. The respondent argued that the action was abusive and constituted double joinder due to organizational ties with a related company involved in parallel proceedings. The Central Division rejected these arguments, affirming ALD France's independent legal standing and upholding the principle that fragmented patent litigation is permissible under the UPC framework.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order addressed a request by Belparts Group N.V. to join its counterclaim for infringement (pending before the CD Paris) with IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH's revocation action (before the CD Paris), and subsequently, to refer another case between divisions. The Court ultimately rejected this connection joinder request. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of R. 340 RoP, emphasizing that procedural choices made by parties must align with the core principles of efficient justice and avoiding conflicting decisions.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a significant decision involving prosthetic heart valves, the UPC Central Division addressed both a revocation action and a counterclaim for infringement. The court ultimately found that several claims of EP 4 151 181 B1 were infringed by Meril's products (Octacor/Octapro System). Furthermore, the ruling established strict compliance measures, including substantial penalty payments for non-adherence to the injunction orders. This case highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where validity challenges run parallel to infringement enforcement.
Scantrust v.Advanced Track And Trace (ATT)
In a procedural victory for settlement, the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court homologated an agreement between Scantrust and Advanced Track And Trace (ATT). The case, which had initially been brought as a revocation action against patent EP2364485, concluded with both parties agreeing to terminate the dispute. This decision underscores the UPC's role in facilitating amicable resolutions while maintaining confidentiality for sensitive transaction details.
Scantrust v.Advanced Track And Trace (ATT)
In a case concerning the revocation of patent EP2364485, Scantrust sought to invalidate the patent held by Advanced Track And Trace (ATT). Instead of proceeding with litigation, the parties reached an amicable settlement. The UPC Central Division subsequently homologated this transaction under Rule 365(2) RdP, formally concluding the dispute and confirming that both sides would bear their own legal costs.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural order, the UPC granted Microsoft Corporation's request to keep detailed legal invoices and billing information confidential during infringement proceedings against Suinno Mobile. The court found that this data, which details hours spent and fees paid, constitutes highly sensitive business information revealing corporate strategy and financial commitment. While granting confidentiality access only to specific counsel, the Court declined to impose a fixed penalty for non-compliance.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a Preliminary objection raised by the patent holder, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., arguing that the revocation action lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was acting as a 'straw company' for another party involved in parallel infringement proceedings. The Court ultimately rejected this argument, emphasizing that coordinated litigation strategies alone do not equate to a straw company structure. This ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required to successfully challenge standing or jurisdiction based on corporate relationships within the UPC framework.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.BALLINNO B.V.
In this procedural order stemming from a revocation action, the UPC Central Division addressed the release of security for legal costs. Following a settlement agreement between Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH and BALLINNO B.V., the court granted the application to transfer the €25,000 security deposit from the defendant to the claimant. This decision highlights how procedural mechanisms can be adapted when parties reach an amicable resolution during litigation.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case, Toyota Motor Europe sought to withdraw a revocation action against Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG concerning patent EP 3 876 490. The Court granted the withdrawal request, formally terminating the proceedings under Rule 265 RoP. Furthermore, the court ruled on the reimbursement of court fees, awarding Toyota a partial refund based on when the withdrawal occurred relative to the procedural stages.
Unspecified v.Essetre Holding spa
In this UPC revocation action, the Court addressed arguments regarding novelty and inventive step for a machine used in machining walls. The core legal discussion centered on claim interpretation, specifically how terms like 'working surface' should be understood within the patent's context. Ultimately, the court rejected the attempt to revoke the patent, maintaining it after incorporating amendments proposed by the defendant.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex application for cost reimbursement following preliminary objection proceedings regarding patent competence. Seoul Viosys sought compensation for costs incurred during the legal dispute over whether the Central or Local Division was competent to hear the revocation action. The Court ruled that while the application was admissible, the recoverable costs were limited because the preliminary objection lacked the technical depth of the main revocation action. Ultimately, a partial award of EUR 11,200 was granted.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In this Central Division revocation action, Sibio Technology Limited challenged the validity of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent EP 3 831 283 B1. The core dispute centered on whether the device's design constituted an inventive step over prior art documents. The Court ultimately dismissed the revocation claim, finding that the claimed invention demonstrated sufficient inventive merit and was not invalidated by the cited prior art. The decision also addressed procedural issues regarding late-filed arguments and the application of Rule 75(3) RoP in subsequent actions, reinforcing principles of flexibility and efficiency within the UPC framework. This ruling provides clarity on how courts assess non-obviousness when a dramatic design change is involved.
KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH v.BALLINNO B.V.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the confidentiality of financial details within an application for a cost decision. The Claimant sought to protect specific costs information, arguing it constituted a business secret revealing strategic resource allocation. While the court denied the broad request for confidential protection under R. 262A RoP, it granted a narrower measure preventing the Defendant from disclosing the subject matter of the cost decision to third parties. This case highlights the delicate balance between protecting party interests and maintaining public oversight in UPC proceedings.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U.
This procedural order addressed an application for public access to the register concerning a closed UPC case (UPC_CFI_181/2024). The Court granted Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB access to specific redacted documents, affirming the general principle that proceedings are open to the public after termination. However, recognizing the need for consistent jurisprudence on confidentiality obligations post-access, the court also granted leave to appeal and suspended the order's effects.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U.
This procedural order addressed an application by a UPC representative firm seeking public access to the file of a concluded revocation action. The Court balanced the general interest in transparency and professional advice against confidentiality concerns, ultimately granting broad access while redacting personal data. The decision highlights the nuanced application of public access rules (R. 262.1(b) RoP) even after proceedings have been terminated by agreement.
HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order addressed an applicant's request for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in a terminated revocation action (EP2661892). The Court of First Instance granted redacted access to most documents, finding that the general interest in transparency outweighed concerns about proceeding integrity after termination. However, the court rejected access to specific exhibits containing non-technical information, emphasizing that file inspection must be limited to technical explanations regarding interpretation and validity.
HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order addressed an applicant's request for public access to confidential written pleadings and evidence in a UPC revocation action. The court affirmed the general principle that proceedings are open to the public, even after termination without a final judgment, provided there is no overriding interest in confidentiality. While granting access to redacted documents, the judge also granted leave to appeal due to the need to establish consistent jurisprudence regarding post-termination file confidentiality.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request for access to confidential case files following the revocation of an EP patent. The Court held that once a first instance judgment is rendered, the public interest in transparency and understanding the court's reasoning generally prevails over confidentiality concerns. Although the applicant was granted access to the documents, the judge-rapporteur also allowed Juul Labs to appeal and suspended the order pending the outcome of that appeal.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH initiated a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning European Patent EP 3 655 346 B1, which covers a specialized pressure pack dispenser. Lindal argued the patent lacked industrial application and novelty. The UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action, maintaining the patent as amended by the defendant's auxiliary request. This decision underscores the procedural complexities of UPC litigation, particularly regarding the interplay between invalidity arguments and amendments.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH initiated a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning the pressure pack dispenser patent (EP 3 655 346 B1). The claimant argued for invalidity based on lack of industrial application and novelty. However, the UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action, maintaining the patent as amended by the defendant's auxiliary requests. This decision underscores the procedural complexities within the UPC, particularly concerning claim amendments and the interpretation of patentability requirements.
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.