Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
97 cases · page 3 of 4
Showing 61–89QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.European Patent Office (EPO)
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application seeking the reimbursement of court fees related to a previous action against the European Patent Office (EPO). The case, which involved challenging an EPO decision, was closed after the EPO rectified its initial ruling. However, the UPC Court dismissed Qualcomm's request for fee reimbursement. The Court ruled that because the original order on this matter was issued by a single judge and is appealable, the current application could not overturn or modify that prior procedural decision.
SWAT Medical AB v.Meril Italy S.r.l.
This UPC decision addressed an application for public access to court records in ongoing revocation proceedings concerning a medical device patent. The applicant, SWAT Medical AB, sought access as a competitor interested in the validity of the patented technology. The Court ruled that the general principle of transparency applies, granting access to all pleadings and evidence. However, it also granted leave to appeal and suspended the order's effect, setting up potential future legal challenges regarding the scope of public disclosure.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd.; Meril GmbH; Meril Italy S.r.l.
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sought an extension of time to file its rejoinder in a revocation action concerning EP 4 151 181. The Court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while efficiency is important, it cannot override the fundamental principle of fair trial. This decision reinforces the UPC's cautious approach to granting procedural extensions, ensuring balance and fairness between parties.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC granted Microsoft Corporation's request for Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to provide security for legal costs. The court determined that based on evidence of the respondent's recent incorporation and lack of substantial assets, there was a legitimate concern that any future cost orders might not be recoverable. This ruling reinforces the Court's power to manage litigation risk by requiring financially vulnerable parties to secure their liabilities.
SWAT Medical AB v.Meril Italy srl, Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC decision addressed a request for public access to confidential pleadings and evidence within an ongoing revocation action concerning a medical device patent. The applicant, SWAT Medical AB, sought access based on their interest as a competitor in the cardiac implant technology field. However, the Court rejected the application, ruling that general industry involvement is not enough to override the need to protect the integrity of the proceedings and confidential party interests. This case reinforces the high threshold required for third parties seeking document access in UPC litigation.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a procedural order concerning a revocation action, the UPC Central Division addressed a late counterclaim for infringement filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. Despite the filing missing the two-month deadline set by Rule 49 RoP, the court granted an exceptional retrospective extension of the time limit. The ruling emphasizes that technical malfunctions beyond a party's reasonable control can justify granting such extensions under UPC rules, providing clarity on procedural fairness in complex litigation.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC decision, while addressing procedural matters related to confidentiality and representative independence, confirms that certain contractual information qualifies as a protected business secret under EU law. The panel set aside the initial secrecy order but granted leave to appeal due to the novelty of the issue concerning representative independence before the UPC. This case highlights the intersection between trade secret protection and complex procedural rules within the Unified Patent Court framework.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In this case management order, Microsoft Corporation challenged a previous decision regarding the manifest inadmissibility of its infringement action. The UPC Panel upheld the initial rejection, ruling that the alleged lack of independence of the claimant's representative was not 'manifest' enough to warrant dismissal under Rule 361 RoP. Furthermore, the court found that the statement of claim sufficiently addressed the request for damages. This decision reinforces the high threshold required for declaring an action manifestly inadmissible in UPC proceedings.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Central Division granted a decision by default in favor of Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) against ITCCiCo Spain S.L., leading to the revocation of EP 2 796 333. The patent, which covers speed detection and warning systems for vehicles, was invalidated based on lack of novelty and inventive step. This case underscores the strict procedural requirements within the UPC, where failure by a defendant to respond promptly can result in an adverse judgment.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated initiated proceedings at the UPC to annul a decision made by the European Patent Office regarding patent EP3516914. However, the EPO subsequently rectified the contested decision in line with Qualcomm's request. Consequently, the Court of First Instance closed the action without further deliberation or consultation of the parties. This case highlights the procedural mechanism within the UPC for handling actions against decisions of the EPO when those decisions are corrected by the Office.
KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH v.BALLINNO B.V.
This UPC Central Division decision addressed a procedural application seeking to stay revocation proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal against a denial of provisional measures. The Court firmly rejected Ballinno B.V.'s request, emphasizing that allowing such indefinite delays would violate the fundamental right to effective legal protection and contradict the UPCA's goal of ensuring final hearings occur within one year. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining procedural efficiency and timely justice in revocation actions.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
In a procedural decision, the UPC dismissed a revocation action brought by Aiko Energy against Maxeon Solar concerning EP 3065184. The claimant withdrew the claim before it was formally served upon the defendant. The court confirmed that this withdrawal had no legal effect on the defendant and closed the proceedings accordingly. Furthermore, the Claimant was granted reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees paid.
CEAD B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning the confidentiality of litigation costs in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_367/2023). The parties sought to restrict access to detailed cost breakdowns, which included individually negotiated attorney fees. The Court ultimately granted public confidentiality for these documents, finding that the private interest in protecting fee arrangements outweighed the general public's need for such granular financial detail. This ruling reinforces the protection of sensitive commercial information within UPC proceedings.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Central Division rejected a revocation action against EP 3 414 708. The case centered on complex arguments regarding the admissibility of patent amendments to claims that were not directly challenged in the initial revocation suit. By maintaining the patent in its amended form, the court provided clarity on how patentees can utilize procedural mechanisms like auxiliary requests during litigation, even when only a subset of claims is attacked.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.BITZER Electronics A/S; Carrier Corporation
In a decision concerning public access to court files, the UPC granted an application by Mathys & Squire LLP. The applicant sought access to all written pleadings and evidence in a patent validity case (EP 3 414 708). The Court determined that the general interest of the public in transparency superseded any potential confidentiality concerns under Article 45 UPCA, particularly as the proceedings were concluding. This ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to open justice while balancing party interests.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a significant UPC decision, the Central Division rejected revocation actions against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning its prosthetic heart valve patent (EP '825). The claimants argued for invalidity based on lack of novelty and inventive step. However, the Court maintained the patent's validity after accepting an amendment submitted by the defendant, underscoring the importance of procedural compliance in UPC litigation.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a complex revocation action, the UPC Central Division rejected Meril Italy Srl's attempt to invalidate EP 3 646 825. The patent relates to an advanced prosthetic heart valve with a unique hexagonal cell frame design. Despite multiple procedural maneuvers and consolidation of related counterclaims, the Court upheld the patent's validity after incorporating amendments. This case underscores the UPC's jurisdiction over complex medical device patents and its strict approach to maintaining patent rights unless clear invalidity grounds are established.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a significant decision concerning medical device patents, the UPC Central Division rejected revocation actions against EP '825. The patent relates to an advanced prosthetic heart valve with a unique hexagonal cell frame structure designed to prevent leakage. Although Meril Italy Srl initiated the action based on novelty and inventive step arguments, the Court ultimately maintained the patent's validity after considering amendments submitted by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. This case highlights how procedural conduct, specifically the submission of limitations during proceedings, can determine the outcome of a revocation suit.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
In this UPC CFI decision, the court addressed a procedural challenge regarding an Application to Amend filed during a revocation action. The claimant argued that the defendant's application was inadmissible because it failed to use a separate workflow in the CMS. However, the Court rejected this argument, ruling that filing the amendment alongside the defense met the statutory deadlines and adhering strictly to specific CMS workflows cannot override principles of fairness. This decision provides clarity on procedural flexibility during the early stages of UPC proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In this procedural application, Microsoft Corporation challenged the admissibility of an infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy concerning EP 2 671 173. Microsoft argued that the claimant was improperly represented and that the statement of claim lacked specificity. The UPC rejected these arguments, holding that a representative's administrative involvement does not negate their independence for procedural purposes. The court also found that the claims for injunction and damages were sufficiently clear, allowing the infringement action to proceed.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Roche Diabetes Care GmbH and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. addressed a request for an extension of time to file a rejoinder in revocation proceedings. The Court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while flexibility is key in UPC procedure, extensions must be based on objective impossibility or extreme difficulty. This ruling reinforces the strict standard required for procedural relief, particularly when parties introduce new evidence.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In this procedural order within an infringement action, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy successfully argued for the protection of confidential business secrets contained in licensing agreements (Agreements A & B). The UPC Central Division ruled that these documents must be restricted from the respondent, Microsoft Corporation. This decision reinforces the importance of balancing commercial confidentiality with the right to a proper defense within the UPC framework.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.***
This UPC decision addressed a revocation action concerning EP 3 170 639 B1, which ultimately became moot when the patent holder voluntarily withdrew the patent. The court analyzed the equitable distribution of costs, noting that it is generally unfair to charge costs to a patent owner who withdraws immediately upon seeing relevant prior art presented in the lawsuit. Despite this finding regarding equity, the claimant was ordered to bear the procedural costs.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In a preliminary objection hearing, the UPC Central Division addressed arguments concerning whether a standstill agreement could prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The court ruled decisively that violating such an agreement does not equate to a lack of jurisdiction. This ruling clarifies the scope of contractual limitations on judicial proceedings within the UPC framework, emphasizing that procedural agreements cannot override the fundamental ability of the court to hear the case.
CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
In this procedural case, CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. sought simultaneous interpretation for their representatives during revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 681 034 B1. Although the court rejected the broad request for language changes, it granted a specific allowance for Dr. Wim Maas to be interpreted into German at his own cost. This decision highlights the UPC's balance between maintaining procedural integrity in the language of grant and ensuring effective participation for all parties.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a preliminary objection raised by Mala Technologies Ltd. in a revocation action against Nokia Technology GmbH concerning EP 2 044 709 B1. The Court rejected the objection, thereby confirming its jurisdiction and allowing the main proceedings to continue. Crucially, the ruling also denied requests for procedural delays, such as staying the case pending decisions from the German Federal Court of Justice or extending deadlines. This reinforces the UPC's commitment to timely and efficient dispute resolution.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a dispute over the scope of patent amendments during revocation proceedings. The respondent (Carrier Corporation) sought to amend the patent to include claims beyond those challenged by the claimant (BITZER Electronics A/S). The panel ultimately ruled that these non-challenged amendments were inadmissible. This reinforces the principle that defensive measures in UPC litigation must remain proportional and confined to the scope of the initial dispute.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825, the UPC Central Division addressed a complex procedural issue regarding subsequent patent amendments. The Court ruled that while it possesses discretionary power to admit these late requests, this must be done fairly and without prejudicing the opposing party's right of defence. This decision highlights the delicate balance between allowing patentees to refine their claims and ensuring due process in UPC litigation.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG to stay revocation proceedings against EP 3 876 490 pending parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO. The Court ultimately rejected the stay application, emphasizing that 'rapid decision' must mean a concrete and near-future expectation from the EPO. The ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to expeditious justice, prioritizing the right holder's interest in timely legal certainty over potential cost savings for the defendant.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V and Juul Labs International Inc.
This order addressed a request for public access to documents under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, stemming from parallel EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3430921. The Applicant argued that parties in EPO oppositions needed full visibility into UPC revocation actions to protect their interests and uphold natural justice. While the court granted access to existing materials in the CMS, it firmly rejected requests for future documents or non-decision/order court-generated materials, citing a lack of legal basis and practical concerns.
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.