Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
103 cases · page 4 of 4
Showing 91–102Edwards 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.
AUGUST DEBOUZY v.Respondent
Martin Lionel applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for public access to several Registry documents and communications related to revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_263/2023) between BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The respondents did not submit any comments on the application. The judge-rapporteur held that Rule 262(1)(b) covers only written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties, and does not extend to Registry communications, formal-checks notifications, or court orders on procedural matters such as stays.
Meril Italy srl v.Respondent
This case concerns a generic application (App_7364/2024) lodged within a revocation action (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3646 825. The claimant, Meril Italy srl, requested permission to exchange further written pleadings, arguing that the defendant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, introduced new defence arguments in its rejoinder regarding the priority issue and the alleged scope of the patent. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi considered the request under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, which confers discretionary powers to the judge-rapporteur to allow further exchange of written pleadings upon a reasoned request.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_454/2023) brought by Tandem Diabetes Care entities regarding European patent EP 2 196 231, to extend the deadline for filing its defence to revocation. Roche argued that a pending preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction would not be decided before the current deadline expired, making it unreasonable to finalize submissions that might become unnecessary. The Court, presided by Judge Paolo Catallozzi, considered the request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which grants discretionary powers to extend time periods upon reasoned request.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an action for declaration of non-infringement filed by Tandem Diabetes Care entities against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 196 231. While Roche's preliminary objection on jurisdiction was pending, Roche filed a procedural application seeking an extension of the deadline to file its defence. The Court examined Roche's request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, weighing arguments relating to the pending preliminary objection, parallel revocation proceedings, and the potential for a stay under Rule 76(3).
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Respondent
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed a revocation action against ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking revocation of European patent EP 2 796 333 before the Central Division (Paris Seat). ITCiCo Spain S.L. filed a procedural application seeking an extension of the time limit for delivery of its statement of defence to 29 February 2024, citing delayed access to case exhibits through the Case Management System and the illness of its long-standing European Patent Attorney. BMW opposed the extension, arguing that service had been completed on 25 November 2023 and the defence was accordingly due by 25 January 2024. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi issued the order on 9 February 2024.
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v.Respondent
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 proceedings between Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Neither respondent opposed the request, with Suinno limiting its objection to confidential portions and Microsoft leaving the decision to the Court's discretion. The Presiding Judge held that the interest in ensuring impartial and independent proceedings without external interference prevails over the interest in file access where the matter concerns a purely legal and general issue, and that such access can be satisfied through the written pleadings and evidence already available.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HEALIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat (decision issued on 2023-06-16) under reference UPC-001753, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE appeared in dispute with HEALIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.