Paris (FR) Local Division
65 cases · page 1 of 3
Showing 1–29VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This UPC decision addressed preliminary objections regarding the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division in a complex infringement case involving multiple Bosch entities. The Court clarified that for Article 33(1)(b) AJUB to apply, the commercial link must exist among all defendants, not necessarily individually with the anchoring defendant. Crucially, 'same infringement' only requires violation of the same patent, not identical products. While rejecting the request to dismiss the case, the panel granted permission for an appeal, signaling a significant legal development on jurisdictional scope.
Gowling WLG v.Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France-Viatris Santé
This procedural order addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a third-party firm of UPC representatives, seeking access to the case file in an ongoing provisional measures dispute between Merz and Viatris. The Court balanced the need for transparency with the protection of confidential information. Access was granted selectively, allowing the applicant to review extracts relevant to the legal issue of 'unreasonable delay,' while ensuring personal data was anonymized.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd et autres sociétés du groupe Bosch
In this preliminary ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed objections raised by various Bosch entities challenging its internal jurisdiction over a patent infringement action brought by Valeo. Bosch argued that because the alleged infringing products did not apply to all defendants, the case should be transferred to another division (Düsseldorf). The court rejected these objections, clarifying that Article 33.1 b/ AJUB only requires the infringement to relate to the same patent among multiple defendants, regardless of product identity across all parties. This ruling clears the path for the merits phase of the infringement claim.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
In this procedural case, KEEEX SAS successfully defended against a motion by Adobe and associated parties seeking a default judgment. The dispute centered on whether KEEEX's financial guarantee met the strict requirements set out in the UPC Rules of Procedure (RdP). The Court found that while initial documentation was imperfect, KEEEX demonstrated good faith and diligence by providing proof of funds within the deadline and subsequently submitting the required banking guarantee. This decision reinforces the principle of procedural fairness over rigid formalistic demands.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA
Guardant Health sought provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding the alleged infringement of four liquid biopsy patents by their MSK-DDM test. The UPC Court rejected the application for provisional measures, citing insufficient demonstration of infringement and procedural issues such as unreasonable delay and improper use of 'added matter.' Crucially, the court also issued an interim costs award, ordering Guardant Health to pay Sophia Genetics 400,000 euros.
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France
IMC Créations sued Mul-T-Lock France alleging infringement of its European patent EP4153830 concerning vehicle security locks. The case involved complex arguments regarding the modified unit patent and nullity counterclaims. Although IMC Créations was held responsible for damages resulting from the infringement, the court ultimately dismissed its claims related to the Swiss jurisdiction and did not grant a permanent injunction against Mul-T-Lock.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI L.P, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
KEEEX SAS successfully defended its jurisdiction challenge against a large group of defendants including Adobe and OpenAI. The Paris Local Division rejected all preliminary objections, confirming that evidence gathered by a French judicial officer regarding online content is sufficient to establish territorial competence under UPC rules. This ruling reinforces the importance of local evidentiary procedures in establishing infringement grounds within the unified patent court system.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In this preliminary objection case, Sun Patent Trust successfully defended its infringement action against Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether the UPC had jurisdiction to rule on FRAND terms alongside patent infringement of an SEP. The Court decisively rejected VIVO's argument, establishing that determining FRAND compliance is not a standalone claim but rather a necessary condition precedent for granting relief in an infringement action under Article 32(1)(a) UPCA. This ruling reinforces the integrated nature of SEP litigation within the UPC framework.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a significant preliminary objection ruling, the UPC rejected Vivo's challenge to its jurisdiction over an SEP infringement case. The core dispute centered on whether seeking a determination of FRAND terms constituted an independent claim outside the scope of the Unified Patent Convention (UPC). The Court clarified that while FRAND assessment is critical for SEPs, it is intrinsically linked to the main action for infringement and does not render the entire claim inadmissible. This decision reinforces the UPC's competence in handling complex SEP litigation involving both infringement and licensing conditions.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.
In a significant ruling for the plastics industry, the UPC Local Division of Paris dismissed Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll's infringement action against the First group. The case centered on the 'Connecto®invisible' hydraulic gutter grille technology (EP3272938). Despite detailed claims regarding manufacturing and offering infringing products, the court found no evidence of literal or equivalent infringement. Furthermore, RPN was ordered to cover the respondents' legal costs provisionally.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This preliminary order in a SEP infringement case highlights the UPC's commitment to procedural efficiency. The court denied a request by VIVO Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. to postpone its Statement of Defence filing deadline pending the resolution of a Preliminary Objection concerning jurisdiction and FRAND defenses. The ruling reinforces that defendants must not use POs as a mechanism to unduly delay core proceedings, especially when the underlying defense (FRAND) would be raised anyway.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA; Sophia Genetics SAS; Sophia Genetics SRL; Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. filed an application for provisional measures against the various Sophia Genetics entities concerning four European patents (EP 3766986 et al.). Since the defendants failed to provide legal representation promptly, the UPC Court of First Instance issued a procedural order setting the date for an oral hearing on December 12, 2025. This decision highlights the UPC's commitment to rapid case management in urgent provisional measures proceedings.
Merz Therapeutics GmbH v.Viatris Santé
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures (UPC_CFI_697/2025), the Court addressed the disparity in the length of written submissions between Merz Therapeutics and Viatris Santé. Recognizing that the extensive 473-page objection filed by Viatris was disproportionate to the summary nature of the proceedings, the Judge Rapporteur intervened. The Court imposed strict page limits—70 pages for Viatris's summary objection and 40 pages for Merz's reply—to ensure procedural economy while maintaining fairness.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI L.P, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
This procedural order in the UPC case involving KEEEX SAS against major tech players like Adobe and OpenAI addresses critical timing issues. The court aligned all defendants' deadlines to ensure fair administration of justice, recognizing the complexity and high stakes of the infringement action. Furthermore, it granted an exceptional four-week extension for filing defenses, allowing parties adequate time to address the extensive claims and technical details.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a critical dispute over the starting date of deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections and Statements of Defense in an infringement action. The Court confirmed that prior agreements regarding confidentiality regimes establish the effective start date, despite subsequent appeals. While maintaining strict adherence to procedural efficiency, the judge-rapporteur granted a limited three-week extension based on the parties' voluntary compliance with information sharing requests.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a critical timing issue in an infringement action concerning EP3407524, specifically regarding the commencement of deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections and Statements of Defense. The Court confirmed that the final confidentiality regime established the procedural starting point, despite subsequent appeals. Recognizing the parties' voluntary cooperation on information access, the Judge-rapporteur granted a strictly limited extension to ensure fair trial rights while maintaining procedural efficiency.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving hairpiece technology, the Paris Local Division addressed issues of patent scope and procedural admissibility amidst the claimant's judicial reorganization. While the court found the infringement action admissible, it ultimately rejected all claims against GISELA MAYER GmbH for infringing EP 2404516. Significantly, the decision also mandated that N.J DIFFUSION SARL bear a provisionary cost of €50,000 to cover the respondent's legal fees.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This UPC decision addresses procedural matters in a complex patent dispute involving TIRU and MAGUIN regarding the waste incineration process EP3178578. The Panel successfully ordered the joinder of two parallel infringement actions concerning the same furnace product to streamline proceedings. Crucially, while referring revocation counterclaims to the Central Division, the court decided not to grant a stay on the main infringement case, allowing it to proceed under specific conditions.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This procedural order addressed complex issues arising from parallel litigation involving infringement and revocation of EP3178578. The UPC Local Division decided to join two related infringement actions (TIRU v. VALINEA ENERGIE and TIRU v. MAGUIN) for efficient case management, citing the principle of good administration of justice. Crucially, while counterclaims seeking patent revocation were correctly referred to the Central Division, the court denied the request to stay the ongoing infringement proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order related to an infringement action, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed critical issues surrounding confidential information disclosure between Sun Patent Trust and Vivo Mobile Communication entities. The court meticulously defined categories for 'Confidential' and 'Highly Confidential' data within the Statement of Claim. This ruling sets strict parameters on who can view unredacted documents, limiting access to authorized legal counsel and necessary external experts, thereby balancing transparency with trade secret protection.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC addressed the critical issue of protecting confidential information within an ongoing infringement action involving Sun Patent Trust and Vivo Mobile Communication. The Court meticulously defined what constitutes 'Confidential' and 'Highly Confidential' data related to the patent EP3407524. This order sets stringent access controls, limiting unredacted documents only to authorized legal counsel and experts of the Defendants, thereby balancing the need for full disclosure in litigation with the imperative of protecting trade secrets.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
This procedural order in the Paris Local Division addressed Gisela Mayer's request for N.J Diffusion to provide a €50,000 guarantee due to N.J Diffusion's insolvency proceedings. The Panel ultimately dismissed this guarantee request, citing French collective procedure law which prioritizes the principle of equality among creditors. Crucially, the underlying infringement action was confirmed to continue despite the debtor's financial difficulties.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, Warmcook
In this UPC decision, the Paris Local Division addressed complex issues regarding patent amendments and infringement claims. Although the court allowed Hurom Co., Ltd to unconditionally amend its patent (EP3155936), it ultimately found that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient factual evidence of infringement in Poland. Consequently, all infringement claims were dismissed, setting a high bar for claimants seeking remedies outside the core UPC territory.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Sweden) AB, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS (Danemark) ApS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE LUXEMBOURG S.A., XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl and HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA
ArcelorMittal initiated an infringement action against numerous XPENG-related entities concerning a patent covering coated steel strips and stamped products. However, the claimant subsequently filed an application to withdraw the suit, citing a settlement reached with the defendants. The UPC Court granted the withdrawal request, formally closing the proceedings. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to exit litigation early when settlements are reached.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
In a significant decision for the LED industry, the UPC Local Division of Paris found Laser Components SAS liable for infringing Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s patent EP3404726. The court granted a permanent injunction against the sale and use of the infringing UVC LED chips across France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the respondent was ordered to provide extensive sales and distribution data, allowing the claimant to proceed with calculating full damages.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
This UPC decision addressed a third party's request for access to the file in an ongoing infringement and revocation case concerning printer cartridge patents (EP2089230 and EP1737669). LIFE 365 S.R.L. sought full disclosure, arguing that the technical arguments from the UPC proceedings were relevant to its parallel litigation in Italy. The court ultimately granted limited access to key pleadings but denied broader access, emphasizing that only documents directly necessary for the Italian dispute would be shared.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P (Demandeur) and LAMA France (Défendeur)
This UPC procedural decision addressed a third party's request for access to the case file (UPC_CFI_358/2023). LIFE 365, an Italian company involved in the printer cartridge market, sought full access to documents related to the infringement and revocation proceedings between HPDC and LAMA France. The court balanced the applicant's legitimate interest—driven by ongoing national litigation and high costs—against the need to protect confidentiality and maintain procedural integrity. Ultimately, limited access was granted, restricting disclosure only to specific pleadings relevant to the patent validity challenge.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This UPC decision addressed a challenge to ex parte evidence preservation orders granted by the Paris Local Division. TIRU sought seizure and site inspections against MAGUIN regarding alleged infringement of its waste incineration patent (EP3178578). MAGUIN challenged these measures, arguing lack of urgency and bad faith on TIRU's part. The court ultimately rejected MAGUIN’s request, affirming that the initial urgent measures were justified given the competitive market environment.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This UPC decision addressed a challenge by VALINEA ENERGIE against an ex-parte evidence preservation order granted to TIRU regarding the patent EP3178578. VALINEA argued that TIRU breached its duty of loyalty and that the request was untimely, suggesting prior knowledge of the patented technology. The Court rejected these arguments, affirming that TIRU's urgency justified the initial ex-parte measure. Furthermore, the court denied VALINEA's attempt to increase the required security deposit.
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France and Mul-T-Lock Suisse
In this preliminary objection case (UPC_CFI_702/2024), the UPC Division Locale de Paris addressed a challenge by Mul-T-Lock regarding its jurisdiction over national designations of EP 4153830 in non-unitary states like Switzerland and Spain. The Court rejected the objection, affirming that the UPC maintains competence to handle these cases. This decision reinforces the principle of centralized dispute resolution within the UPC framework, promoting legal certainty for patent holders.
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.