Litigation
at Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
108 litigation decisions from Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat.
Litigation Decisions
108 cases | Page 4 of 4
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) addressed whether a patent proprietor may amend claims that were not challenged in a revocation action. BITZER Electronics had filed a revocation action against Carrier Corporation's European patent EP 3 414 708 limited to claim 1, and Carrier sought to amend the patent with respect to additional non-challenged claims. The Court held that the right to amend a patent during litigation is a defensive tool limited to reacting to the invalidity challenge, and therefore declared the amendment request inadmissible with regard to claims other than claim 1.
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Ex Parte
Procedural Order
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V. and Juul Labs International Inc.
Nicoventures Trading Limited, a party to EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3 430 921, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International, Inc. before the Central Division (Paris Seat). The Court granted access to all written pleadings and evidence currently contained in the CMS, but rejected requests for court-generated documents, future materials, and materials not yet visible through the CMS.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
This is an order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) issued on 5 April 2024 in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. Following an interim conference held on 2 April 2024, the judge-rapporteur set out procedural decisions regarding the validity of the priority claim, the admissibility of amendments, late-filed attacks, the value of the proceedings, and the scheduling of the oral hearing.
Martin Lionel v.BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation
An applicant, Martin Lionel, sought public access under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure to various Registry documents and communications related to a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris seat) rejected the application, holding that Rule 262(1)(b) applies only to written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties, not to Registry communications or orders issued by the Court.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Application No. App_7184/2024)
This order concerns a procedural dispute in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3646 825 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance. The claimant, Meril Italy srl, sought to refuse the defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's subsequent application to amend the patent lodged with its rejoinder. The panel granted the claimant's request, ruling that Rule 263(1) RoP did not apply and that the defendant's request constituted a 'subsequent request' to amend the patent under Rule 50(2) and Rule 30(2) RoP, which was not admitted.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3646 825 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat), the claimant Meril Italy srl requested permission to exchange further written pleadings to respond to new arguments raised by the defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in its rejoinder. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the claimant had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting further pleadings and that any reaction to the defendant's arguments could be made during the oral hearing. The request for leave to appeal was also rejected.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Unified Patent Court decision.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Unified Patent Court decision.
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 defence to revocation until 8 April 2024 (or alternatively 18 March 2024), citing a pending preliminary objection and a parallel action for declaration of non-infringement. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the discretionary power to extend time limits under Rule 9(3) RoP should only be used in justified exceptional cases where a party demonstrates objective difficulty in arranging a defence, and that under Rule 19(6) RoP the lodging of a preliminary objection does not affect the deadline for the statement of defence unless the judge-rapporteur decides otherwise.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in an action for declaration of non-infringement concerning European patent EP 2 196 231, requested an extension of the deadline for filing its statement of defence until 8 April 2024 (or alternatively 18 March 2024), citing a pending preliminary objection and a parallel revocation action. The judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris Seat) rejected the request, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any objective difficulty in arranging a proper defence and that the mere possibility that submissions might become unnecessary did not justify an extension of the statutory deadline.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
ITCiCo Spain S.L., the defendant in a revocation action brought by BMW concerning European patent EP 2 796 333, requested an extension of time to file its statement of defence until 29 February 2024. The judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris Seat) rejected the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of objective impossibility or extreme difficulty in meeting the deadline, and that submitting the extension request on the very last day of the deadline was inconsistent with the principle of fairness.
NJOY Netherlands BV v.VMR Products LLC
Unified Patent Court decision.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
Unified Patent Court decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
Unified Patent Court decision.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
Unified Patent Court decision.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HEALIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
Unified Patent Court decision.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HEALIOS K.K, RIKEN, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.