Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
97 cases · page 2 of 4
Showing 31–59Aylo Premium Ltd. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
In a significant decision concerning streaming technology, the UPC Central Division revoked the German national part of EP 3 822 805 B1. The dispute centered on the validity of an apparatus for adaptive-rate content streaming. While the revocation was limited to Germany, the ruling underscores the Court's ability to tailor the scope of patent invalidity across different UPC member states. This case is a key example of how national validation status impacts unitary proceedings.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
In a significant revocation action, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH successfully challenged and obtained the revocation of European patent EP 1 944 067 B1 against Ballinno B.V. The court confirmed the patent's invalidity for Germany and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the decision provided important guidance on claim interpretation, emphasizing that general terms in a patent claim cannot be restricted by specific examples or embodiments found within the patent description.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a cost application filed by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft following a revocation action that resulted in a default judgment against them. The court ruled that the procedural step of seeking to set aside the default judgment is an internal remedy and cannot independently generate a costs award. Instead, the costs associated with this specific procedural challenge must be integrated into the cost assessment of the main proceedings (the original revocation action). This ruling clarifies the scope of cost claims in UPC procedures involving interlocutory remedies.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC Cost Decision addressed the reimbursement claims filed by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against Tandem Diabetes Care entities following a revocation action. The court firmly rejected the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings based on a pending appeal, emphasizing that such appeals cannot unduly delay the successful party's right to prompt financial settlement. Ultimately, the court determined the final costs at EUR 117,741.62 after carefully adjusting travel expenses while validating representation fees within the applicable ceiling.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In this cost determination case, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH for reimbursement of legal costs against Tandem Diabetes Care. The court firmly rejected the respondents' attempt to stay the proceedings based merely on a pending appeal on the merits, reinforcing the principle that successful parties should not be unduly delayed in receiving cost awards. After reviewing and adjusting various expense claims, including travel costs, the Court ultimately granted the requested compensation of EUR 117,741.62.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding cost allocation following a default judgment in a revocation action. The applicant sought to recover costs related to their attempt to set aside the initial default ruling. The Court ruled that because setting aside a default is an internal procedural remedy, these specific costs should not be determined separately but must be integrated into the final cost assessment of the main proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural application concerning an infringement action, the UPC Central Division addressed Microsoft Corporation's request for a decision by default against it. Although Microsoft failed to provide security for costs as required, the Court exercised its discretion and rejected the application. The ruling emphasizes that while rules allow for default judgments, the court must ensure sufficient evidentiary certainty exists before proceeding, thereby prioritizing substantive fairness over strict procedural adherence.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.
This UPC decision addresses procedural applications concerning rectification and cost allocation following a decision by default. The court established strict criteria for rectifying judicial orders, emphasizing that such corrections must be limited to clear clerical errors or obvious slips, not substantive omissions like the failure to address costs. Furthermore, the panel ruled that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy and does not require its own merits-based cost determination. The costs incurred in this phase must instead be assessed within the main proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In this procedural application, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought to have the infringement action against them declared manifestly inadmissible due to alleged issues with party representation. The UPC Central Division rejected this request, establishing a key principle that procedural defects like lack of valid representation do not automatically invalidate an action but require the court to grant time for remedy. This decision reinforces the requirement that 'manifest inadmissibility' must be immediately evident from the pleadings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural ruling concerning an infringement action, the UPC addressed the issue of invalid party representation for the claimant. Despite the respondent's request to dismiss the case due to the representative's lack of authority, the court rejected this argument. The panel ruled that while the initial representation was defective, it did not invalidate the entire proceeding. Instead, the claimant was granted 30 days to appoint a new, valid representative who would be required to ratify all prior submissions.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this significant UPC revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. challenged the validity of Juul Labs International Inc.'s vaporization device patent (EP 3 504 989). While the Claimant succeeded in challenging the original scope of the patent, the Court ultimately allowed the Defendant's application to amend the claims. This decision demonstrates the complex interplay between revocation proceedings and claim amendments within the UPC framework, resulting in a modified maintenance of the patent.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
In a revocation action concerning EP3 822 805 B1, AYLO PREMIUM LTD sought security for legal costs from DISH Technologies L.L.C., citing high insolvency risks within the Defendant's corporate group. However, the UPC Central Division rejected this request. The Court found that the Defendant provided sufficient evidence of its solvency, including a declaration from EchoStar undertaking to cover potential costs. This decision highlights how financial stability and supporting declarations can influence procedural rulings in complex patent litigation.
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC decision addressed an application by the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office seeking access to a case file. The Court ruled that while public access is generally the rule, the paramount interest in maintaining the integrity and impartiality of ongoing proceedings outweighs the applicant's general interest in accessing specific documents. The ruling emphasizes that for purely legal issues, knowledge derived from existing court orders or pending appeals may suffice, negating the need for confidential file inspection.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In this revocation action concerning electronic vapour products, the UPC Central Division ruled that the core claim (Claim 1) lacked inventive step and was therefore invalidated. However, the court adopted a nuanced approach, maintaining the patent in part by upholding the independent validity of specific dependent claims (6, 7, and 8). This decision highlights the importance of analyzing the inventive step on a claim-by-claim basis, even when the main independent claim fails.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. initiated a revocation action against VMR Products LLC challenging European patent EP 3 626 092, which covers vaporizer devices (electronic cigarettes). The core argument centered on the lack of inventive step regarding features like a translucent cartomizer body. The UPC Central Division ultimately dismissed the revocation action, upholding the validity of the patent. This decision reinforces the high bar for demonstrating non-obviousness in technical fields, particularly when addressing perceived design improvements.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a significant revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. successfully challenged and obtained the complete revocation of European patent EP 3 430 921 B1 against Juul Labs International, Inc. The UPC Central Division ruled that the patent was invalid across eight member states, including Germany and France. This decision underscores the effectiveness of the UPC in handling complex validity challenges related to vaping technology patents. It serves as a strong precedent for patentees seeking to challenge the scope or validity of granted European patents within the unified system.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Hamburg addressed complex bifurcation requests between an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP2792100. Recognizing the efficiency gains from consolidating validity arguments, the court referred the revocation counterclaim to the Central Division Paris. Crucially, the local division decided not to suspend or separate the ongoing infringement proceedings immediately, opting instead to continue them while awaiting the outcome of the parallel revocation action.
Bentley Motors Limited v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Bentley Motors Limited sought to withdraw a revocation action against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399. The court granted the request, emphasizing that Rule 265(1) of the RoP does not mandate express consent from the respondent, provided they are given an opportunity to comment and do not object. This decision provides clarity on procedural requirements for withdrawing actions within the UPC framework.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application filed by ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking to overturn a default judgment in a revocation action against Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft. The core issue was whether the claimant provided sufficient justification for missing critical deadlines. The Court ruled that merely explaining the delay is insufficient; the applicant must prove the failure was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure, thereby reinforcing strict procedural compliance within the UPC system.
Meril Italy srl v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application for cost allocation in the context of public access to the register. The applicants sought reimbursement of costs incurred during a prior proceeding regarding their request for access. The Court ruled that because the underlying proceedings were administrative, aimed at enhancing judicial transparency rather than resolving private rights disputes, they did not constitute a 'decision on the merits'. Consequently, the application for cost recovery was dismissed.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In this UPC decision concerning an infringement action, the Court addressed a request by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to reduce its security for costs from EUR 300,000 to EUR 100,000. The Court ultimately denied the reduction request. A key finding was that the determination of the value of proceedings—which dictates the security amount—must be based on the objective interest at the time the action was filed, making subsequent changes in claimed damages irrelevant for this purpose.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural application concerning security for costs, the UPC Central Division dismissed Microsoft Corporation's request to increase the required financial guarantee against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. Although Microsoft argued that increased litigation complexity and the respondent's admitted financial strain warranted higher security, the Court found no new circumstances justifying an amendment. This decision reinforces the principle that initial assessments of recoverable costs, based on the claimant's objective interest at filing, remain relevant even as proceedings progress.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH
In a significant decision for the medical device sector, the UPC Central Division rejected revocation actions against EP 4 074 373. The patent, which covers MRI-safe magnetic elements in implantable devices, was ultimately maintained, albeit in an amended form (Auxiliary Request 0a). This ruling underscores the importance of successful amendment strategies when facing validity challenges before the UPC.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In this revocation action, Tandem Diabetes Care challenged the validity of a patent covering an ambulatory drug infusion system held by Roche. The claimants argued that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step based on various prior art documents. However, the UPC Central Division dismissed the revocation action, ruling that the combination of cited prior art was insufficient to invalidate the patent. This decision reinforces the high bar required for challenging established patents in the UPC.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This procedural order addressed Microsoft Corporation's request for leave to appeal a prior decision concerning claim amendments and damages reduction in an infringement action. The Court of First Instance ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing that granting such leave requires demonstrating either differing interpretations among UPC judges or a concrete interest served by the appeal. This ruling reinforces the principle of efficiency within the UPC proceedings.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In a significant revocation action concerning electronic vapour products, the UPC Central Division dismissed NJOY Netherlands B.V.'s challenge against VMR Products LLC's patent (EP 2 875 740 B1). The Claimant argued that the patent lacked inventive step, but the Court ruled that the alleged lack of inventiveness was not substantiated by the prior art cited. This decision reinforces the robustness of certain technical innovations within the vaping market and serves as a strong defense for patentees against validity challenges.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In a significant revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. successfully challenged VMR Products LLC's patent EP 3 456 214, which covers electronic vaporizers/e-cigarettes. The UPC Central Division found that the patent lacked inventive step and ordered its complete revocation across all relevant territories. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules regarding amendments and evidence in complex validity challenges before the Unified Patent Court.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC decision addressed an application by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy seeking leave to reduce the damages claimed in an infringement action against Microsoft Corporation. The court ruled that limiting a claim, such as reducing the monetary value of damages, falls under Rule 263(3) and must be granted if properly explained. This reinforces the principle that procedural efficiency allows for necessary adjustments to claims during litigation, provided they are adequately justified.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a significant revocation action, the UPC Central Division revoked European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1 concerning vaporization device systems (aerosol cartridges). The decision not only resulted in the complete invalidation of the patent across multiple UPCA territories but also provided important procedural guidance on how courts handle applications to amend patents during revocation proceedings. This case underscores the UPC's power to enforce validity challenges while managing complex technical and legal submissions.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. initiated a revocation action against Juul Labs, Inc., challenging the validity of EP 3 504 991 B1, which covers vaporization device cartridges. The UPC Central Division ultimately dismissed the revocation action, upholding the patent's validity. The decision reinforced fundamental principles of European patent law, particularly stressing that inventive step must be assessed objectively by a person skilled in the art, independent of the parties' subjective views.
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.