Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
97 cases · page 3 of 4
Showing 61–89Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat (decision issued on 2024-10-14) under reference UPC-001207, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH appeared in dispute with Ballinno concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
Central Division Paris Seat ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central division (Paris seat) issued on 14 October 2024 concerning the Applications RoP262.1(b) Nos. App_33486/2024, 33487/2024 and 33489/2024 lodged in the proceedings UPC_CFI_255/2023 and counter
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
1. The procedural efficiency must yield to the principle of the fair trial. Therefore, a request for extension of a time period must be denied where the opposing party has already met the correspondent shorter, ordinary time period.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in a main infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, applied for an order requiring the respondent Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to provide security for legal costs of at least EUR 800,000 (alternatively EUR 600,000), citing the respondent's alleged insolvency risk and lack of substantial assets. The respondent opposed the application and requested reciprocal security if any security order were granted. The Court analyzed the legal basis under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158(1) RoP, confirming its discretion to order security for costs when the respondent's financial position raises a legitimate concern that a costs order may not be recoverable or enforceable.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
SWAT Medical AB, a medical device company based in Sweden, filed an application seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 4 151 181, which was the subject of a revocation action between the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The applicant claimed a direct interest as a competitor and board member/investor in cardiac implant technology, citing concerns about a third-party product under development potentially covered by the patent's claims. The respondents (the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) opposed the application, with the Meril entities jointly requesting rejection and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation seeking dismissal.
Meril Italy srl, Meril GmbH, Meril Life Science Private Limited v.Respondent
Central Division Paris Seat ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central division (Paris seat) issued on 17 September 2024 concerning the generic procedural applications Nos. App_45333/2024 and 51629/2024 lodged in the proceedings UPC_CFI_189/2024 APPLICANT
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.Respondent
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) against ITCiCo Spain S.L. regarding European Patent EP 2 796 333, which relates to a graded control signal system for warning vehicle users of speeding conditions. The claimant sought a decision by default under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure after the defendant failed to submit any request or defense. The court examined the conditions for issuing a default decision, considering the requirements of Rule 355 and the discretionary assessment under Rule 335.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Microsoft Corporation for review and setting aside of an order restricting access to documents deemed business secrets in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The respondent, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, had successfully obtained a confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, limiting access to certain Microsoft attorneys and directors. Microsoft filed alternative requests including dismissal of the Rule 262A application, a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on representative independence requirements, amendment of the access list, and leave to appeal. The available text of the order is incomplete and does not contain the panel's full reasoning or operative ruling.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application with the Court of First Instance of the UPC Paris Central Division seeking annulment of a decision of the European Patent Office (EPO) dated 10 July 2024, made in carrying out tasks under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012. The Court forwarded the application for interlocutory revision to the EPO, which subsequently rectified the contested decision in accordance with the Claimant's request. As the Claimant did not identify any particular circumstances justifying reimbursement, the Court closed the case without prior consultation of the parties.
Ballinno B.V. v.Respondent
Ballinno B.V. requested that the Central Division stay revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1 pending the outcome of its appeal against the denial of its provisional measures application by the Local Division Hamburg. The court denied the request, holding that an appeal against the denial of provisional measures does not generally justify a stay of revocation proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP, and that the proceedings must be conducted to allow the final oral hearing at first instance within one year.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH filed a revocation action against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. seeking to revoke European Patent No. EP 3065184 relating to trench processes for backside contact solar cells. Before the Statement for Revocation was served on the Defendant, the Claimant withdrew the claim and requested partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid.
BEGO Medical GmbH v.CEAD USA B.V., CEAD B.V.
This order concerns a request for confidentiality protection under Rules 262A and 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure in a nullity action regarding EP 2 681 034 B1. The defendant/applicant BEGO Medical GmbH sought access restrictions for information about its attorney costs submitted in annexes to its brief following an interim hearing under Rule 104(k). The judge-rapporteur addressed the interplay between inter-party confidentiality under Rule 262A and public access restrictions under Rule 262.2, establishing guiding principles for balancing the relevant interests.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.Respondent
An intellectual property firm, Mathys & Squire LLP, applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The respondents, BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation, did not submit any comments. The judge-rapporteur granted the application, finding that since the proceedings had come to an end, the interests opposing publication under Article 45 UPCA were not substantial enough to override the requester's interest in accessing the documents.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
BITZER Electronics A/S brought a revocation action against Carrier Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 414 708 B1, which relates to an apparatus and method for cold chain monitoring of perishable goods. The claimant alleged the patent was invalid due to added subject matter, insufficient disclosure, lack of novelty over several prior art documents, and lack of inventive step. The defendant filed a statement of defence along with a main request and twelve auxiliary requests to amend the patent. The court addressed procedural issues concerning the admissibility of amendments to non-attacked claims and the permissibility of new grounds for revocation raised in the reply.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding European Patent No. EP 3 646 825, which relates to embodiments of a prosthetic heart valve featuring a sealing mechanism to prevent or minimize perivalvular leakage. The patent was filed on 16 July 2012 as a divisional application and claims priority from two earlier patent applications of 15 July 2011 and 13 July 2012. The claimant sought revocation of the patent on grounds including that the subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation in the proceedings.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH against European Patent EP 2 044 709 B1 owned by Mala Technologies Ltd. The dispute centered on a preliminary objection raised by Nokia, which sought to reject Mala Technologies' Application to amend the patent as inadmissible, arguing that the Defendant failed to initiate the correct workflow in the Case Management System in a timely manner. The Court denied Nokia's request, holding that the Application to amend was filed within the two-month time limit under Rule 49(1),(2) RoP and that the Rules of Procedure do not unambiguously require a separate workflow for such applications.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, filed an application seeking rejection of the statement of claim as manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued that Suinno's representative could not be considered an independent counsellor under the Code of Conduct because he was also the named inventor, original applicant, and Managing Director of the patent's assignees. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the obligation to act as an independent counsellor can only be invoked by the represented party itself, not by the opposing party, and that performing administrative tasks does not per se render a representative non-independent.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231, requested an extension of the deadline to file its rejoinder to the reply to the defence to revocation until 29 July 2024. The applicant argued that the claimants had introduced new prior art documents not previously part of the proceedings, and that a parallel counterclaim for revocation had been filed before the Hamburg local division, requiring additional time to prepare a proper response. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur considered the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity in exercising discretionary powers to modify procedural deadlines.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This order concerns an application by the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, to keep certain evidence ('Agreement A & B') submitted in the main infringement proceedings against Microsoft Corporation confidential from the defendant and the public, on the grounds that they contain business secrets of licensees. Microsoft objected to the admissibility of the application, arguing that the plaintiff's representative lacked independence under the Code of Conduct because he was also the named inventor, original applicant, and Managing Director of the patent's assignees. The presiding judge rejected Microsoft's objection, holding that independence must be assessed relative to potential harm to the represented party's interests rather than in an absolute sense.
STAÛBLI TEC-SYSTEMS GMBH v.***
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 concerning a method for controlling the speed and positioning of a tool change carriage. In response to prior art documents submitted with the nullity action, the patent proprietors disclaimed the patent, rendering the main case moot under Rule 360. The court addressed the cost allocation, holding that it would generally be inequitable to impose costs on the patent proprietor who immediately disclaims the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity complaint.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
The defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 filed a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to a standstill agreement requiring 90 days' notice before filing lawsuits. The claimants (respondents to the preliminary objection) countered that the standstill agreement did not affect the court's jurisdiction and that they had complied with the notice period. The Court of First Instance rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the violation of a standstill agreement does not constitute grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. v.Respondent
This order concerns a nullity action regarding EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance, with German as the language of proceedings. The claimants, CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. (Dutch companies), requested simultaneous interpretation into Dutch, alternatively English, for both the interim hearing on May 29, 2024 and the oral hearing on August 23, 2024. The claimants argued that their managing directors, the responsible personnel, and their authorized representative Dr. Wim Maas do not speak German, and that as medium-sized enterprises they cannot be expected to provide multilingual case management.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
This order concerns a preliminary objection lodged by Mala Technologies Ltd. in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH regarding European Patent EP 2 044 709 B1. Mala Technologies sought to have the court decline jurisdiction and reject the revocation action as inadmissible, or alternatively to stay proceedings pending a decision of the German Federal Court of Justice in parallel German revocation appeal proceedings. Nokia opposed the preliminary objection and the requests for a stay. The Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Paris Seat), presided over by judge-rapporteur Maximilian Haedicke, rejected the preliminary objection in its order of 2 May 2024.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
This order concerns two generic applications (App_19959/2024 and App_23242/2024) lodged in revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed a subsequent application to amend the patent after the closing of the written procedure, proposing one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The claimant Meril Italy srl submitted comments leaving the admission decision to the Court's discretion while requesting additional time to file an additional defence if the amendment was admitted. The presiding judge addressed the Court's discretionary powers under Rule 30(2) RoP regarding the admission of subsequent requests to amend a patent after the written procedure has closed.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
This order was issued by the Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Paris Seat) in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, filed a subsequent application to amend the patent after a previous amendment application had been rejected and after the closing of the written procedure. The Court recognized its discretionary authority to admit such a subsequent amendment request, provided that the claimant's right to defence was preserved through the possibility of filing an additional defence if the amendment was admitted.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This order concerns an application by Carrier Corporation seeking review of a decision by the judge-rapporteur regarding the admissibility of patent amendments in revocation proceedings. BITZER Electronics had filed a revocation action against Carrier Corporation's European patent EP 3 414 708 limited to claim 1, and Carrier Corporation filed a main request and twelve auxiliary requests to amend the patent, some of which related to non-attacked claims. The Court held that a request to amend a patent must refer only to claims that have been challenged, rendering amendments to unchallenged claims inadmissible.
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA against European Patent EP 3 876 690, owned by Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG, before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant requested a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of its appeal against the rejection of a Preliminary Objection and pending accelerated opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing the appeal was unlikely to succeed and that the request was a delay tactic. The Court set new dates for the interim conference (19 July 2024) and oral hearing (25 September 2024).
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V and Juul Labs International Inc.
1 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) issued on 24. April 2024 concerning EP 3430921 KEYWORDS: Rule 262 RoP request REFERENCE CODE ECLI: not provided APPLICANT Nicoventures Trading Limited, Globe House, 1 Water S
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
This order was issued by the judge-rapporteur in a revocation action concerning European patent No. EP 3 414 708. The order addressed three procedural issues: the validity of the patent's priority claim, the allowable form of amendments, and late-filed attacks on validity. The judge-rapporteur ruled that the priority claim validity issue should remain part of the proceedings, deferred amendment-related issues to the oral hearing, excluded novelty attacks based on MB5 and MB6, but admitted sufficiency attacks targeting the amended version of the patent.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
This order concerns a revocation action brought by BITZER Electronics A/S against European patent EP 3 414 708 held by Carrier Corporation. The judge-rapporteur addressed procedural and substantive issues arising from the interim conference, including the validity of the priority claim, the admissibility of certain patent amendments, and late-filed attacks on novelty and sufficiency. The ruling permitted the priority challenge to proceed, excluded late-filed novelty attacks based on documents MB5 and MB6, allowed sufficiency attacks targeting the amended patent, and deferred questions regarding the admissibility of certain amendments and the twelfth auxiliary request to the oral hearing.
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.