Denied
at Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
48 denied decisions from Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat.
Denied Decisions
48 cases | Page 1 of 2
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Das Europäische Patentamt (EPA)
This UPC decision addressed an appeal by PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG against the European Patent Office's refusal to grant unitary effect for EP 3 327 608. The core dispute centered on whether the requirement that a patent must be granted in all participating member states could be interpreted flexibly, especially concerning later-joining members like Malta. The UPC ultimately upheld the EPA's decision, emphasizing the strict legal requirements governing the unitary effect and rejecting arguments based on fundamental rights or administrative discretion.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
In a procedural order concerning revocation and infringement actions, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed IMI Hydronic Engineering's request for Belparts Group to provide security for costs. IMI argued that Belparts was economically vulnerable, citing losses in 2023. However, the court dismissed the request, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests on the applicant. The decision highlights the strict evidentiary requirements necessary to successfully obtain security for costs proceedings within the UPC framework.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case, ALD France S.A.S challenged the validity of EP 3 083 107 B1 against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG. The respondent argued that the action was abusive and constituted double joinder due to organizational ties with a related company involved in parallel proceedings. The Central Division rejected these arguments, affirming ALD France's independent legal standing and upholding the principle that fragmented patent litigation is permissible under the UPC framework.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order addressed a request by Belparts Group N.V. to join its counterclaim for infringement (pending before the CD Paris) with IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH's revocation action (before the CD Paris), and subsequently, to refer another case between divisions. The Court ultimately rejected this connection joinder request. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of R. 340 RoP, emphasizing that procedural choices made by parties must align with the core principles of efficient justice and avoiding conflicting decisions.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a Preliminary objection raised by the patent holder, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., arguing that the revocation action lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was acting as a 'straw company' for another party involved in parallel infringement proceedings. The Court ultimately rejected this argument, emphasizing that coordinated litigation strategies alone do not equate to a straw company structure. This ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required to successfully challenge standing or jurisdiction based on corporate relationships within the UPC framework.
Unspecified v.Essetre Holding spa
In this UPC revocation action, the Court addressed arguments regarding novelty and inventive step for a machine used in machining walls. The core legal discussion centered on claim interpretation, specifically how terms like 'working surface' should be understood within the patent's context. Ultimately, the court rejected the attempt to revoke the patent, maintaining it after incorporating amendments proposed by the defendant.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In this Central Division revocation action, Sibio Technology Limited challenged the validity of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent EP 3 831 283 B1. The core dispute centered on whether the device's design constituted an inventive step over prior art documents. The Court ultimately dismissed the revocation claim, finding that the claimed invention demonstrated sufficient inventive merit and was not invalidated by the cited prior art. The decision also addressed procedural issues regarding late-filed arguments and the application of Rule 75(3) RoP in subsequent actions, reinforcing principles of flexibility and efficiency within the UPC framework. This ruling provides clarity on how courts assess non-obviousness when a dramatic design change is involved.
KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH v.BALLINNO B.V.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the confidentiality of financial details within an application for a cost decision. The Claimant sought to protect specific costs information, arguing it constituted a business secret revealing strategic resource allocation. While the court denied the broad request for confidential protection under R. 262A RoP, it granted a narrower measure preventing the Defendant from disclosing the subject matter of the cost decision to third parties. This case highlights the delicate balance between protecting party interests and maintaining public oversight in UPC proceedings.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH initiated a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning European Patent EP 3 655 346 B1, which covers a specialized pressure pack dispenser. Lindal argued the patent lacked industrial application and novelty. The UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action, maintaining the patent as amended by the defendant's auxiliary request. This decision underscores the procedural complexities of UPC litigation, particularly regarding the interplay between invalidity arguments and amendments.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH initiated a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning the pressure pack dispenser patent (EP 3 655 346 B1). The claimant argued for invalidity based on lack of industrial application and novelty. However, the UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action, maintaining the patent as amended by the defendant's auxiliary requests. This decision underscores the procedural complexities within the UPC, particularly concerning claim amendments and the interpretation of patentability requirements.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.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.
QUALCOMM 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.