Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
108 cases · page 2 of 4
Showing 31–59Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action before the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 655 346 B1 owned by Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited, which relates to a pressure pack dispenser for viscous materials. The claimant argued lack of industrial application, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step, primarily based on prior art WO 99/18010. The Court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended by the defendant's First Auxiliary Request, ordering costs to be borne 70% by the claimant and 30% by the defendant.
Aylo Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
Revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1 relating to apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) held that the patent was invalid on grounds of added matter, as it extended beyond the content of the parent application. The Court revoked the German part of the patent and ordered the Defendant to bear the costs.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH filed a revocation action against Ballinno B.V. seeking to revoke European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1, which relates to a 'Method and system for detecting an offside situation.' The patent was owned by Ballinno and was in force in Germany and the Netherlands. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) revoked the patent with effect for Germany and the Netherlands, ordered Ballinno to bear the costs, and set the value of the proceedings at up to EUR 1,000,000.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
The judgment text is not available as the order has been temporarily removed and is to be replaced. No factual details, arguments, reasoning, or outcome can be extracted from the provided text.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed an application for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in responding to ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision revoking European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court rejected the application, holding that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy that does not give rise to a separate decision on costs, and that such costs can instead be claimed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation action.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
This is a cost decision by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1. Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought reimbursement of its costs from Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. The Court dismissed the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings pending appeal, resolved an inconsistency in the amount claimed, and determined the recoverable costs at EUR 117,741.62.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) issued a cost decision following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1. The applicant, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, sought reimbursement of costs from the respondents, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. The Court dismissed the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings pending appeal and determined the recoverable costs at EUR 117,741.62, ordering the respondents to pay jointly and severally within three weeks.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed an application for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in defending against ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision revoking European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court rejected the application, holding that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy that does not give rise to a separate decision on costs, and that such costs can instead be claimed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation action.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, requested a decision by default against the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, for failing to provide security for costs within the time limit set by the Court. The Court held that even where a party's default is evident and unjustified, it retains discretionary power and is not obligated to issue a decision by default. The application was rejected because the written pleadings at the time of default did not permit a sufficiently confident assessment of the contested validity of the patent and the absence of infringement, and the Court considered it more appropriate to proceed with an in-depth examination at the oral hearing.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) sought rectification of an order dismissing ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s application to set aside a default decision revoking European patent EP 2 796 333, arguing that the omission of a costs provision constituted an obvious slip. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) rejected the application, holding that the omission of a costs decision was not a rectifiable clerical error under Rule 353 RoP, and that an application to set aside a default decision is an internal procedural remedy not requiring a separate costs decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action and counterclaimant for revocation, filed a procedural application seeking to have Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action declared manifestly inadmissible on the ground that Suinno's appointed representative held extensive administrative and financial powers within the company and was therefore ineligible to represent it. The Court of First Instance rejected the request, holding that the lack of valid representation requires granting the party an opportunity to remedy the deficit rather than declaring the action inadmissible, and that the matter required further in-depth analysis beyond what constitutes manifest inadmissibility.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) addressed a representation issue in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Following a Court of Appeal order confirming that the claimant's appointed representative could not serve due to holding extensive administrative and financial powers within Suinno, the court declared the representative invalid, granted Suinno 30 days to appoint a new representative (who must ratify prior pleadings), and suspended procedural deadlines during that period.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 504 989 (titled 'VAPORIZATION DEVICE SYSTEMS'), owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. NJOY argued the patent was invalid for added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step, while Juul Labs sought to maintain the patent as granted or as amended. The Court revoked the patent as granted but maintained it in amended form based on Auxiliary Request 1, ordering each party to bear its own costs.
Aylo Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
Aylo Premium Ltd brought a revocation action against EP 3 822 805 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) and requested that DISH Technologies L.L.C. provide security for legal costs of at least EUR 400,000 under R. 158 RoP, citing insolvency risks within the DISH/EchoStar group. The Court rejected the request, finding that Aylo had not met its burden of proof given the lifting of the going concern qualification, the group's receipt of over USD 8 billion in new funding, and EchoStar's irrevocable declaration to reimburse Aylo's legal costs up to EUR 400,000.
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy & Microsoft Corporation
The Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to the written pleadings and evidence in an infringement action between Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The applicant argued a specific interest based on the status and representation rights of in-house European Patent Attorneys before the UPC, an issue addressed in prior orders in the proceedings. The Court of First Instance (Paris seat) dismissed the application, holding that the interest in protecting the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in accessing the case file, as the matter was purely legal and of a general nature.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
Revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 613 453 B1 relating to electronic vapour products, filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against VMR Products LLC. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) found that claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 lacked inventive step over prior art, but dependent claims 6, 7, and 8 involved an inventive step and possessed independent validity. The patent was maintained in part based on claims 6, 7, and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted, with the remainder revoked.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
A revocation action before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 626 092 B1, which relates to vaporizer/electronic cigarette devices. The claimant argued the patent lacked inventive step based on prior art references 'Pan' and 'Cross'. The court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as granted, finding the claimant's arguments regarding lack of inventive step were not well founded.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 430 921 B1, owned by Juul Labs International, Inc. and directed to vaporization device systems. The Court revoked the patent entirely with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, and ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg concerns the bifurcation of infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant Daedalus Prime LLC and Defendants Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH all favored referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division Paris. The court referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division Paris while continuing with the infringement action, scheduling the oral hearing not before early summer 2025.
Bentley Motors Limited v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Bentley Motors Limited filed a revocation action against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning European patent EP 1 552 399 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance. The applicant subsequently applied to withdraw the revocation action, stating it had the respondent's consent and that no party would seek a cost decision. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered that all prior orders in the proceedings be of no effect.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
ITCiCo Spain S.L. applied under Rule 356 of the Rules of Procedure to set aside a decision by default (ORD_51965/2024) issued against it in a revocation action brought by BMW concerning European patent EP 2 796 333. ITCiCo argued that its default in filing the defence to revocation was justified by uncertainty regarding service and the unavailability of its long-standing European Patent Attorney due to illness. The Court rejected the application, holding that the explanation of default under Rule 356(2) RoP must demonstrate that the non-compliance was not attributable to the party's own fault but was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure.
Meril Italy srl, Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB
The applicants sought reimbursement of EUR 15,000 in costs incurred in proceedings concerning the respondent's application for access to written pleadings and evidence, which had been rejected. The Court of First Instance dismissed the cost application, holding that a request for access to the register does not constitute litigation in a technical sense and therefore cannot give rise to a decision on the merits, which is a prerequisite for a cost decision under Rule 150 RoP.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation filed an application requesting that Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy be ordered to provide additional security for legal costs of at least EUR 500,000 (alternatively EUR 300,000), on top of the EUR 300,000 security already ordered by the Court. The Court characterized the request as one to modify the existing security by increasing its amount, and after reviewing the arguments, dismissed the application, finding that the new circumstances cited by Microsoft did not warrant a reassessment of the adequacy of the security already ordered.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought review of a security for costs order of EUR 300,000 imposed against it in its infringement action against Microsoft Corporation, requesting reduction to EUR 100,000 based on its subsequent reduction of damages claimed. The Court of First Instance dismissed the application, holding that the reduction in damages claimed was immaterial to the value of the proceedings, which reflects the claimant's objective interest at the time of filing, and that the applicant's other arguments constituted a critique of the original order that could only be raised on appeal.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics Sarl v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH
This case concerns a revocation action and counterclaims for revocation of European Patent EP 4 074 373, titled 'MRI-SAFE DISK MAGNET FOR IMPLANTS,' owned by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH. Advanced Bionics AG filed the revocation action, while Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl filed counterclaims for revocation, challenging the patent on grounds of added subject matter, lack of inventive step, and insufficiency of disclosure. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended according to Auxiliary Request 0a, with costs allocated 70% to the Claimants/Counterclaimants and 30% to the Defendant.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes Care filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes Care's European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, which relates to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. Roche raised a preliminary objection based on a standstill agreement requiring 90 days' notice before filing suit, which was rejected. The Court ultimately dismissed the revocation action, finding that the grounds for invalidity (added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step) were not well founded, and maintained the patent as granted.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation sought leave to appeal an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) that had granted the respondent, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, leave to reduce its damages claim to €2 million in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Microsoft argued that leave to appeal would clarify the scope and limits of the Court's powers in interpreting a party's request under Article 76(1) UPCA and the admissible scope of a Rule 263 RoP application. The panel rejected the request, finding that the issue raised was not the subject of different interpretations by UPC judges and would not affect the final decision on the merits.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC concerning European patent EP 2 875 740 B1, which relates to electronic vapour products. NJOY challenged the patent's validity on the ground of lack of inventive step, relying on prior art documents including 'Cross', 'Pan', and 'DiFonzo', as well as common general knowledge. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the invention was not obvious in view of the cited prior art combinations, and maintained the patent as granted, ordering NJOY to bear the costs.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 456 214, which relates to vaporizers/electronic cigarettes, on the grounds of lack of inventive step based on prior art documents 'Pan' and 'Cross'. The defendant filed conditional applications to amend the patent with multiple auxiliary requests. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the grounds for invalidity well founded, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, the claimant in a patent infringement action against Microsoft Corporation before the Central Division (Paris seat), applied under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to reduce its damages claim from the originally stated amount to €2 million, citing more accurate evidence. Microsoft opposed, arguing the application fell outside Rule 263, was a litigation tactic to reduce security for costs, and failed to meet the rule's requirements. The Court granted the application, holding that a reduction of damages constitutes a limitation of the claim which must be granted under Rule 263(3) when filed with due explanation and unconditionally, but rejected Suinno's request to reconsider fees already paid.
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.