Litigation
at Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
108 litigation decisions from Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat.
Litigation Decisions
108 cases | Page 3 of 4
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking revocation of Juul Labs' European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1, directed to vaporization device systems (cartridges for generating inhalable aerosols). Juul Labs, as defendant, sought to maintain the patent as granted or in amended form based on twelve auxiliary requests. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the claims as granted and all proposed auxiliary requests added matter extending beyond the content of the parent and grandparent applications as filed, in violation of Article 123(2) EPC.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 504 991 B1 owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., which relates to vaporization device systems (cartridges for generating inhalable aerosols). The Court dismissed the revocation action entirely, finding that the Claimant had failed to establish lack of novelty or inventive step, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Qualcomm Incorporated (Application for Reimbursement of Court Fees) v.Ex Parte
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application seeking reimbursement of court fees after the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court closed its action against a European Patent Office decision, which had been rectified during the proceedings. The Court had previously closed the case under R. 91.2 RoP without ordering reimbursement. The Court dismissed Qualcomm's subsequent application, holding that it could not review its own previous order on the same subject-matter, and noted that the order could be appealed.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno
Unified Patent Court decision.
SWAT Medical AB v.Meril Italy S.r.l., Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Meril Gmbh, and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
SWAT Medical AB and its board member/investor applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for public access to all pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 646 825. The respondents opposed the application, seeking rejection or limitations on access and confidentiality conditions. The Court of First Instance granted the applications, allowing access to all pleadings and evidence, but granted leave to appeal and suspended the effects of the order pending any appeal.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This order concerns procedural applications filed in revocation proceedings related to European patent No. 4 151 181 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sought a 9-day extension of the deadline for lodging its rejoinder to align it with another deadline, but the respondents (Meril entities) opposed the request. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, holding that procedural efficiency must yield to the principle of fair trial, as granting the extension would create an imbalance since the claimants had already complied with the shorter, standard deadline.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action (UPC_CFI_164/2024) concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, applied for an order requiring the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, to provide security for legal costs. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) granted the application, finding credible evidence that Suinno's financial situation posed a real risk that any costs order would be unrecoverable, and ordered Suinno to provide security of EUR 300,000 within one month. The Court also declared inadmissible Suinno's counter-request seeking reciprocal security from Microsoft.
SWAT Medical AB and Erik Krahbichler v.Meril Italy srl, Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The applicants, SWAT Medical AB and its board member Erik Krahbichler, sought access under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure to all written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 4 151 181 between the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The presiding judge-rapporteur rejected the application, holding that operating in the same field as the patent was insufficient to establish a specific interest and that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicants' general interest in information.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in an underlying infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, sought panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order rejecting its application to have the claimant's action declared manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order, holding that the alleged lack of independence of the claimant's representative and the alleged insufficiency of the statement of claim did not meet the threshold of 'manifest' inadmissibility. The panel also declined to grant leave to appeal or refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court reviewed a confidentiality order issued in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. While the panel agreed that the documents (a patent license agreement and a patent purchase & licence agreement) contained business secrets worthy of protection, it set aside the confidentiality order because the respondent's representative was simultaneously its managing director and main shareholder, lacking the independence required under Article 48(5) of the UPCA and Article 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct. The application for confidentiality was declared inadmissible, though those already admitted to the confidentiality ring remained bound by non-disclosure obligations, and leave to appeal was granted.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This order concerns procedural applications filed in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 4 151 181. The applicants (Meril entities) sought to have the respondent's (Edwards Lifesciences) counterclaim for infringement declared inadmissible as it was filed after the two-month deadline under Rule 49 of the Rules of Procedure. The judge-rapporteur rejected the application and retrospectively extended the deadline to 23 July 2024 under Rule 9(3)(a) RoP, finding that technical issues with the CMS constituted exceptional circumstances beyond the respondent's reasonable control.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed a revocation action against ITCiCo Spain S.L. concerning European patent EP 2 796 333, which relates to a graded control signal system for warning a vehicle user of speeding conditions. After the defendant failed to file a defence within the prescribed time limit and its request for an extension of time was rejected, BMW requested a decision by default. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) granted the default decision, revoked the patent in its entirety for lacking novelty and inventive step over prior art, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Paris Central Division) seeking annulment of a decision of the European Patent Office dated 10 July 2024. The EPO subsequently rectified the contested decision in accordance with Qualcomm's request during interlocutory revision. The court closed the case without prior consultation of the parties and without ordering reimbursement of the action fee.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
Ballinno B.V. sought a stay of revocation proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067 B1 pending the outcome of its appeal against the denial of provisional measures by the UPC Local Division Hamburg. The Central Division (Paris Seat) rejected 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. The court also rejected Ballinno's request for compensation of legal costs.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH filed a revocation action against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Court of First Instance seeking revocation of European Patent No. EP 3065184. Before the Statement for Revocation had been served on the Defendant, the Claimant withdrew the claim and requested 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 by the defendant BEGO Medical GmbH to restrict access to its attorney cost estimates (Annexes ES8 and ES9) filed in a nullity action concerning EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court. The court rejected the request to restrict access from the opposing parties (CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V.) under Rule 262A, holding that the claimants needed full access to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of costs under Article 69 UPCA. However, the court granted the request to restrict public access under Rule 262.2, finding that the public's interest in individually negotiated attorney fees generally yields to the party's interest in confidentiality.
Mathys & Squire LLP (Application under Rule 262(1)(b) RoP in proceedings UPC_CFI_263/2023) v.Ex Parte
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 revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_263/2023) concerning European patent EP 3 414 708, involving BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation as parties. The respondents did not object to the application. The judge-rapporteur granted the application, finding that the proceedings had concluded and that no substantial interests under Article 45 UPCA outweighed the applicant's interest in accessing the documents.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
BITZER Electronics A/S brought a revocation action against Carrier Corporation seeking to invalidate claim 1 of European patent EP 3 414 708 B1, which relates to an apparatus for cold chain monitoring of perishable goods. The claimant alleged added subject matter, insufficient disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court rejected the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended under auxiliary request II, while splitting costs 60% to the claimant and 40% to the defendant.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl and counterclaims for revocation filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against European patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, relating to prosthetic heart valves with sealing mechanisms. The patent proprietor submitted multiple requests to amend the patent during the proceedings, ultimately proposing one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The Court rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended by auxiliary request II, and ordered costs to be borne 60% by the claimant and counterclaimants jointly and 40% by the defendant.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerned a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl and counterclaims for revocation filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against European Patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, which relates to prosthetic heart valves with sealing mechanisms. The claimants and counterclaimants challenged the patent's validity on grounds including added subject matter, lack of enabling disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended by auxiliary request II submitted by the defendant during the proceedings, and ordered costs to be borne 60% by the claimants/counterclaimants and 40% by the defendant.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Meril Italy Srl filed a revocation action against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to prosthetic heart valves with sealing mechanisms. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation in related infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division, which were transferred to the Central Division Paris. The Court rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended by auxiliary request II submitted by Edwards, with costs split 60% against the claimants/counterclaimants and 40% against the defendant.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
Nokia Technology GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 044 709 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. Mala Technologies Ltd. filed an Application to amend the patent within its Defence to revocation but initiated the separate CMS workflow for the amendment application late. The Court rejected Nokia's request to declare the Application to amend inadmissible, holding that ambiguities in the CMS should not prejudice parties and that the amendment application was filed within the prescribed time limit.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, filed a procedural application seeking to have the infringement action declared manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued that the claimant's representative was non-compliant with the code of conduct due to his multiple roles (inventor, original applicant, and Managing Director) and that the statement of claim was insufficient. The Court of First Instance rejected both grounds and dismissed the application.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231, requested an extension of time to file its rejoinder to the reply to the defence to revocation until 29 July 2024. The Court rejected the request, holding that the introduction of new prior art documents by the claimants and the existence of a separate counterclaim for revocation before the Hamburg Local Division did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the statutory deadline.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought to restrict access to two license agreements (Agreement A & B) submitted as evidence in infringement proceedings against Microsoft Corporation, claiming they contained business secrets of licensees. Microsoft objected on grounds of inadmissibility, arguing the applicant's representative lacked independence under the Code of Conduct. The Court rejected the inadmissibility objection and granted the application, restricting access to the agreements to Microsoft attorneys and directors with a legitimate need.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.Patent Proprietors of EP 3 170 639 B1
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. In response to prior art documents first submitted with the nullity complaint, the patent proprietors acknowledged the nullity claim and surrendered the patent in full. Both parties declared the main proceedings moot under Rule 360 RoP. The court held that it is generally unfair to impose costs on a patent proprietor who immediately surrenders the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity action, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs while granting a 60% refund of court fees.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This order concerns a preliminary objection lodged by Tandem Diabetes Care entities (as defendants in a revocation action) seeking dismissal of a revocation action brought by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH concerning European patent EP 2 196 231. Tandem argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to a standstill agreement requiring 90 days' prior written notice before filing IP-related proceedings. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that while the standstill clause was valid and applicable to IP disputes, its violation constitutes a matter of inadmissibility rather than a ground for lack of jurisdiction.
CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
In a nullity action concerning EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, the claimants (CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V.) requested court-ordered simultaneous interpretation from German into Dutch, alternatively English, for an interim hearing and oral hearing. The court rejected the request for court-funded interpretation under Rule 109(1) RoP, finding that the claimants already had three German-speaking legal representatives who had extensively written in German, and that the language skills of one additional representative did not justify court-ordered interpretation. However, the court granted the subsidiary request for interpretation at the claimants' own cost under Rule 109(2) sentence 2 RoP.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Mala Technologies Ltd. (the patent proprietor) in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 2 044 709 B1, which is valid only in Germany. Mala Technologies argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction because a prior revocation action had been filed with the German Federal Patent Court, relying on Articles 29-32 and 71b of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the lis pendens provisions of Article 71c(2) Brussels I Reg recast only apply when both proceedings are initiated during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, and since the German revocation action was filed before that period, the UPC retained jurisdiction.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
This order concerns a subsequent request by the patent proprietor (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) to amend European patent EP 3 646 825 in revocation proceedings brought by Meril Italy srl. The defendant sought to replace its earlier rejected application (containing 84 auxiliary requests) with a streamlined request comprising one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The Court admitted the subsequent request, exercising its discretionary powers under Rule 30(2) RoP, and granted the claimant one month to file an additional defence.
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.