Denied
at Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
48 denied decisions from Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat.
Denied Decisions
48 cases | Page 2 of 2
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Martin Lionel v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request by an individual seeking public access to various documents related to a patent revocation action. The judge-rapporteur rejected the application, clarifying the scope of document disclosure under the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The ruling emphasizes that 'written pleadings and evidence' must be lodged by parties to qualify for Rule 262(1)(b) access, excluding internal Registry communications or court orders.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Meril Italy srl to extend the written phase of a revocation action against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The claimant sought permission for further pleadings due to new arguments raised by the defendant in its rejoinder. However, the Court ruled that the existing rules governing the written procedure were sufficient and that the request lacked justification under principles of proportionality. This decision reinforces the strict adherence to procedural timelines within UPC revocation actions.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Tandem Diabetes Care to extend its deadline for filing a defense in an action for declaration of non-infringement against Roche. The Court ultimately denied the extension, emphasizing that while flexibility is required under UPC rules, extensions must be based on objective difficulties preventing timely submission, not merely on strategic concerns related to preliminary objections or parallel proceedings. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural deadlines unless exceptional circumstances are proven.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH to extend its deadline for filing a defense in a revocation action against Tandem Diabetes Care. Roche argued that the pending preliminary objection made timely submissions potentially useless and costly. The Court ultimately denied the extension, emphasizing that while flexibility is allowed under Rule 9 RoP, extensions must be justified by an objective difficulty in preparing a proper defense, not merely by procedural uncertainty.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
In a procedural matter concerning a revocation action, the UPC Central Division denied an application by ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking an extension of time to file its statement of defence against Bayerische Motoren Werke AG. The court strictly applied the principles governing discretionary extensions, requiring objective impossibility rather than subjective difficulties like illness or technical access issues. This decision reinforces the strict nature of procedural deadlines within the UPC framework.
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.