Partially Granted
at Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
24 partially granted decisions from Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat.
Partially Granted Decisions
24 cases | Page 1 of 1
Emporia UK and Ireland Limited v.Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd.
In this significant UPC decision, the court granted a revocation action against an LED patent (EP 3 926 698 B1) due to added subject-matter. While some claims were already invalidated in parallel proceedings, the UPC confirmed the invalidity of several remaining dependent claims. The ruling provides important guidance on how partial revocation affects dependent claims and addresses procedural hurdles related to amendments following complex litigation.
Veolia Proprete v.Tiru
In a complex multi-procedural case, the UPC Central Division addressed challenges to the validity of EP 3178578 B1, which covers waste incineration technology. Although the primary request for full revocation was denied, the Tribunal allowed the patent to be maintained in a modified form based on subsidiary claims. This decision highlights the court's willingness to balance legal certainty with technical innovation by allowing targeted modifications rather than outright cancellation.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. v.American Wave Machines, Inc.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Central Division granted a decision by default against American Wave Machines, Inc., after they failed to file a defense in a revocation action concerning EP 2 728 089. The subsequent substantive analysis confirmed the Claimant's arguments, leading to the partial revocation of Claim 1. This case underscores the strict procedural requirements within the UPC and demonstrates how default judgments can be utilized when defendants fail to engage with proceedings.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a significant decision involving prosthetic heart valves, the UPC Central Division addressed both a revocation action and a counterclaim for infringement. The court ultimately found that several claims of EP 4 151 181 B1 were infringed by Meril's products (Octacor/Octapro System). Furthermore, the ruling established strict compliance measures, including substantial penalty payments for non-adherence to the injunction orders. This case highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where validity challenges run parallel to infringement enforcement.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural order, the UPC granted Microsoft Corporation's request to keep detailed legal invoices and billing information confidential during infringement proceedings against Suinno Mobile. The court found that this data, which details hours spent and fees paid, constitutes highly sensitive business information revealing corporate strategy and financial commitment. While granting confidentiality access only to specific counsel, the Court declined to impose a fixed penalty for non-compliance.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex application for cost reimbursement following preliminary objection proceedings regarding patent competence. Seoul Viosys sought compensation for costs incurred during the legal dispute over whether the Central or Local Division was competent to hear the revocation action. The Court ruled that while the application was admissible, the recoverable costs were limited because the preliminary objection lacked the technical depth of the main revocation action. Ultimately, a partial award of EUR 11,200 was granted.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U.
This procedural order addressed an application for public access to the register concerning a closed UPC case (UPC_CFI_181/2024). The Court granted Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB access to specific redacted documents, affirming the general principle that proceedings are open to the public after termination. However, recognizing the need for consistent jurisprudence on confidentiality obligations post-access, the court also granted leave to appeal and suspended the order's effects.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U.
This procedural order addressed an application by a UPC representative firm seeking public access to the file of a concluded revocation action. The Court balanced the general interest in transparency and professional advice against confidentiality concerns, ultimately granting broad access while redacting personal data. The decision highlights the nuanced application of public access rules (R. 262.1(b) RoP) even after proceedings have been terminated by agreement.
HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order addressed an applicant's request for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in a terminated revocation action (EP2661892). The Court of First Instance granted redacted access to most documents, finding that the general interest in transparency outweighed concerns about proceeding integrity after termination. However, the court rejected access to specific exhibits containing non-technical information, emphasizing that file inspection must be limited to technical explanations regarding interpretation and validity.
HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order addressed an applicant's request for public access to confidential written pleadings and evidence in a UPC revocation action. The court affirmed the general principle that proceedings are open to the public, even after termination without a final judgment, provided there is no overriding interest in confidentiality. While granting access to redacted documents, the judge also granted leave to appeal due to the need to establish consistent jurisprudence regarding post-termination file confidentiality.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request for access to confidential case files following the revocation of an EP patent. The Court held that once a first instance judgment is rendered, the public interest in transparency and understanding the court's reasoning generally prevails over confidentiality concerns. Although the applicant was granted access to the documents, the judge-rapporteur also allowed Juul Labs to appeal and suspended the order pending the outcome of that appeal.
Aylo Premium Ltd. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
In a significant decision concerning streaming technology, the UPC Central Division revoked the German national part of EP 3 822 805 B1. The dispute centered on the validity of an apparatus for adaptive-rate content streaming. While the revocation was limited to Germany, the ruling underscores the Court's ability to tailor the scope of patent invalidity across different UPC member states. This case is a key example of how national validation status impacts unitary proceedings.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this significant UPC revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. challenged the validity of Juul Labs International Inc.'s vaporization device patent (EP 3 504 989). While the Claimant succeeded in challenging the original scope of the patent, the Court ultimately allowed the Defendant's application to amend the claims. This decision demonstrates the complex interplay between revocation proceedings and claim amendments within the UPC framework, resulting in a modified maintenance of the patent.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In this revocation action concerning electronic vapour products, the UPC Central Division ruled that the core claim (Claim 1) lacked inventive step and was therefore invalidated. However, the court adopted a nuanced approach, maintaining the patent in part by upholding the independent validity of specific dependent claims (6, 7, and 8). This decision highlights the importance of analyzing the inventive step on a claim-by-claim basis, even when the main independent claim fails.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH
In a significant decision for the medical device sector, the UPC Central Division rejected revocation actions against EP 4 074 373. The patent, which covers MRI-safe magnetic elements in implantable devices, was ultimately maintained, albeit in an amended form (Auxiliary Request 0a). This ruling underscores the importance of successful amendment strategies when facing validity challenges before the UPC.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC decision addressed an application by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy seeking leave to reduce the damages claimed in an infringement action against Microsoft Corporation. The court ruled that limiting a claim, such as reducing the monetary value of damages, falls under Rule 263(3) and must be granted if properly explained. This reinforces the principle that procedural efficiency allows for necessary adjustments to claims during litigation, provided they are adequately justified.
SWAT Medical AB v.Meril Italy S.r.l.
This UPC decision addressed an application for public access to court records in ongoing revocation proceedings concerning a medical device patent. The applicant, SWAT Medical AB, sought access as a competitor interested in the validity of the patented technology. The Court ruled that the general principle of transparency applies, granting access to all pleadings and evidence. However, it also granted leave to appeal and suspended the order's effect, setting up potential future legal challenges regarding the scope of public disclosure.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC granted Microsoft Corporation's request for Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to provide security for legal costs. The court determined that based on evidence of the respondent's recent incorporation and lack of substantial assets, there was a legitimate concern that any future cost orders might not be recoverable. This ruling reinforces the Court's power to manage litigation risk by requiring financially vulnerable parties to secure their liabilities.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a procedural order concerning a revocation action, the UPC Central Division addressed a late counterclaim for infringement filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. Despite the filing missing the two-month deadline set by Rule 49 RoP, the court granted an exceptional retrospective extension of the time limit. The ruling emphasizes that technical malfunctions beyond a party's reasonable control can justify granting such extensions under UPC rules, providing clarity on procedural fairness in complex litigation.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC decision, while addressing procedural matters related to confidentiality and representative independence, confirms that certain contractual information qualifies as a protected business secret under EU law. The panel set aside the initial secrecy order but granted leave to appeal due to the novelty of the issue concerning representative independence before the UPC. This case highlights the intersection between trade secret protection and complex procedural rules within the Unified Patent Court framework.
CEAD B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning the confidentiality of litigation costs in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_367/2023). The parties sought to restrict access to detailed cost breakdowns, which included individually negotiated attorney fees. The Court ultimately granted public confidentiality for these documents, finding that the private interest in protecting fee arrangements outweighed the general public's need for such granular financial detail. This ruling reinforces the protection of sensitive commercial information within UPC proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In this procedural order within an infringement action, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy successfully argued for the protection of confidential business secrets contained in licensing agreements (Agreements A & B). The UPC Central Division ruled that these documents must be restricted from the respondent, Microsoft Corporation. This decision reinforces the importance of balancing commercial confidentiality with the right to a proper defense within the UPC framework.
CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
In this procedural case, CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. sought simultaneous interpretation for their representatives during revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 681 034 B1. Although the court rejected the broad request for language changes, it granted a specific allowance for Dr. Wim Maas to be interpreted into German at his own cost. This decision highlights the UPC's balance between maintaining procedural integrity in the language of grant and ensuring effective participation for all parties.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825, the UPC Central Division addressed a complex procedural issue regarding subsequent patent amendments. The Court ruled that while it possesses discretionary power to admit these late requests, this must be done fairly and without prejudicing the opposing party's right of defence. This decision highlights the delicate balance between allowing patentees to refine their claims and ensuring due process in UPC litigation.
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.