Paris (FR) Local Division
65 cases · page 2 of 3
Showing 31–59NJ DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Court addressed a request by GISELA MAYER GmbH seeking security for costs against NJ DIFFUSION SARL. Despite concerns raised regarding NJ DIFFUSION's financial stability, the court found that the company provided sufficient documentation, including positive expert accounts and annual reports, to counter the insolvency risk claim. Consequently, the request for a cost guarantee was rejected, allowing the main infringement proceedings to continue.
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
This procedural order addressed POSCO's request to access confidential pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against the XPENG group. POSCO sought access to inform its parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO regarding patent EP3290200, which is central to both actions. The Court ultimately granted limited access, recognizing that claim interpretation must be consistent across both infringement and revocation proceedings, while maintaining confidentiality for sensitive technical exhibits.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This UPC procedural order sets the stage for a complex infringement case involving advanced electronic components. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd sued Laser Components SAS over patent EP3404726, focusing on specific electrode structures in PKB chips. The court confirmed key legal and factual disputes, including the interpretation of technical terms and the weight given to expert analysis. The parties have now moved into the oral hearing phase scheduled for March 13, 2025.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd; NUC Electronics Europe GmbH; Warmcook
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Hurom Co., Ltd for further written pleadings in an infringement action against NUC and Warmcook. Although the court initially declared specific new arguments regarding infringement inadmissible due to strict adherence to the established procedural workflow, it ultimately granted the request under Rule 36 RoP. This decision balances the need for efficient proceedings with the principle of fairness, allowing both parties a final chance to address key issues before the Interim Conference.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
In a procedural confirmation case, the UPC Paris Local Division confirmed a settlement reached between C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED and NOVAWELL regarding infringement of EP 2265793. The parties had initially engaged in both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. By confirming the settlement, the Court formally dismissed the proceedings while maintaining the confidentiality of the agreement's terms. This decision highlights the UPC's role in providing judicial finality to private commercial resolutions.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the procedural admissibility of a standalone revocation action filed by an intervener (Photon Wave) in an ongoing infringement case. The Local Division ultimately ruled that, based on principles of fairness and efficiency, the intervention was procedurally inadmissible, despite arguments regarding the general competence of the UPC. This ruling reinforces strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure concerning the rights and limitations of interveners within existing litigation frameworks.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case involving N.J DIFFUSION SARL and GISELA MAYER GmbH addressed a request for an on-site visual inspection of disputed wigs. Although the Court found that the requested measure was not strictly an 'experiment' under the Rules of Procedure, it ultimately rejected the request as unnecessary because detailed photographic evidence had already been submitted by the claimant. The case will proceed with the conference of directions held online.
ArcelorMittal v.Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA, XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl, E-LAIN SAS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by multiple XPENG-related entities and others to change the language of an infringement case from French (or German) to English. The court granted this application, citing fairness and convenience, noting that English was the patent's granting language and widely used among the parties. Crucially, the Claimant, ArcelorMittal, was ordered to provide translations of its Statement of Claim at its own expense. This decision sets a practical precedent regarding procedural efficiency in multinational UPC cases.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
TIRU successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC Local Division of Paris to investigate alleged infringement by MAGUIN SAS regarding a waste incineration patent (EP3178578). The court authorized physical seizure of documents, digital data preservation, and site inspections at VALINEA ENERGIE's facilities. This decision is crucial for TIRU as it allows them to gather necessary evidence before initiating the main infringement proceedings under the UPC.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
TIRU successfully obtained provisional measures (evidence preservation and on-site inspection) against VALINEA ENERGIE regarding alleged infringement of EP3178578. The court recognized its jurisdiction and found that TIRU adequately demonstrated the necessity and scope of the evidence required to prove potential counterfeiting of a waste incinerator technology. This decision is crucial for patent holders needing immediate access to technical documentation before formal litigation begins.
LAMA FRANCE v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P
This UPC decision addressed procedural requests following a substantive judgment, specifically concerning the stay of execution and confidentiality during information exchange. The court firmly rejected LAMA France's request to suspend the enforcement of the prior decision, citing lack of jurisdiction under current rules. However, it validated the need for a restricted confidential circle (club de confidentialité) to protect trade secrets related to financial data exchanged between the parties.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC decision concerns the mutual withdrawal of an infringement action by ICPillar LLC and a corresponding revocation counterclaim filed by ARM entities regarding patent EP3000239. The parties agreed to settle their dispute outside the UPC, leading to the closure of the proceedings. While both withdrawals were permitted, the Court adjusted the court fee reimbursement rate from 60% to 40%, citing the advanced stage of the litigation and the work already performed by the Court.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diagnostics GmbH et al. (multiple entities)
In a significant ruling, the UPC Paris Local Division revoked European patent EP3831282, which covered remote monitoring systems for diabetes management. The decision dismissed all infringement claims brought by DexCom against Abbott's FreeStyle Libre 3 products and associated applications (LibreLinkUp). Beyond the substantive finding of invalidity, the court reinforced procedural strictness, rejecting late-stage attempts to introduce new grounds for revocation.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order sets the stage for a complex infringement dispute between C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED and NOVAWELL concerning patent EP2265793. The Court addressed several preliminary motions, dismissing requests for additional witnesses or language changes, while formally defining the scope of the upcoming oral hearing. Crucially, the Judge-Rapporteur established the value of the case at EUR 1 million, paving the way for a detailed examination of patent validity and infringement.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Logistics B.V.
In this procedural order, DexCom sought to introduce a decision from the Munich Regional Court concerning its parent patent (EP'158) into the ongoing UPC infringement action regarding EP'282. While the UPC acknowledged that case management powers are available at late stages, the court ultimately dismissed DexCom's application. The ruling emphasized that merely referencing related proceedings is insufficient; the external decision must be directly relevant to the patent in suit and its validity on the merits.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement and nullity action concerning compatible printer cartridges. The court affirmed the scope of direct infringement under Article 25 AJUB, ruling that prior knowledge by the defendant is not a prerequisite for establishing infringement. While the claimant sought broad remedies including injunctions and damages, the final judgment focused on compelling information disclosure to facilitate damage calculation, while rejecting provisional payment requests.
Abbott Logistics B.V. v.DexCom, Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Court rejected Abbott's request to amend its claims based on the release of a new version of its LibreLinkUp application. Abbott argued that the timing was necessitated by commercially sensitive information regarding the product launch. However, the Court prioritized the principles of efficiency and celerity inherent in UPC proceedings, finding that allowing such an amendment so close to the oral hearing would unreasonably hinder DexCom's ability to prepare a defense.
I.G.B. S.r.l. v.Unilever France
In a procedural ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed Unilever France's attempt to introduce new claims concerning financial guarantees and execution timelines for injunction, recall, and destruction measures. Unilever argued these were necessary due to new facts regarding packaging use. However, the Court found that these modifications merely complemented previously raised accessory demands and did not fundamentally alter the scope of the infringement dispute. The request for authorization under Rule 263 ROP was therefore dismissed.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P v.Lama France
This procedural order addressed a request by Hewlett-Packard Development Company (HPDC) to call a witness in its infringement action against Lama France. While the court granted the request for the witness to testify orally in English, it rejected Lama's plea for simultaneous interpretation between French and English. The ruling emphasizes the practical application of UPC rules regarding language proficiency and procedural economy.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
This procedural order in the HPDC v LAMA infringement case addressed disputes over the scope of evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court strictly applied the Rules of Procedure, limiting what could be debated based on previous submissions. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to the structured phases of written proceedings within the UPC.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Hewlett-Packard's request for information disclosure against Lama France. HP sought details on third parties and import invoices related to alleged infringing cartridges. The court found that such requests are admissible throughout the litigation process if necessary for instruction. This decision allows HP to gather crucial evidence regarding the supply chain without immediately establishing infringement, setting a precedent for discovery-like procedures in UPC cases.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
This procedural order addressed Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s request for the UPC to compel Dexcom entities to disclose the entire distribution chain of their G6 and G7 diabetes monitoring systems. The Court ruled that while such information can be requested during proceedings, Abbott's specific demand was disproportionate. The judge found that because Abbott had targeted only certain distributors, requesting the full global supply chain was not reasonably necessary for advancing its case.
CANÈ S.p.A. v.FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
In a case concerning infringement of EP3181168, CANÈ S.p.A. and FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE reached an amicable settlement before the UPC Paris Local Division. The court formally homologated this transaction, bringing an end to the litigation. A key aspect of the decision was the ruling on procedural costs, where the claimant successfully claimed a 60% reimbursement based on the timing of the agreement.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This UPC decision addressed procedural motions within an infringement case involving EP3404726. The claimant, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., sought to proceed against Laser Components SAS, while Photon Wave Co.,Ltd. intervened and requested a stay of the proceedings pending a parallel revocation action in the Central Division. The Court rejected the request for a stay, emphasizing procedural efficiency and noting that the infringement case was further along than the revocation case. However, the Court granted the request to allocate a technical judge to the panel.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott NV / SA, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott France, Abbott B.V., Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Laboratories
In a significant ruling, the UPC Paris Local Division revoked European Patent EP3435866, which covers an analyte monitoring system used in Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM). The revocation was granted following a counterclaim by Abbott against DexCom. Consequently, all of DexCom's infringement claims were dismissed. This decision underscores the robust nature of the UPC's jurisdiction over validity challenges and confirms that the claimant cannot unilaterally prevent a defendant from challenging patent validity.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This UPC decision addressed procedural motions filed by an intervening party, Photon Wave Co., Ltd., in a patent infringement case brought by Seoul Viosys against Laser Components SAS. The court rejected Photon Wave's requests for an extension of time to file a counterclaim for revocation and denied the request to change the language of proceedings. While the core infringement claims remain pending, the ruling clarifies strict procedural limitations on intervening parties under UPC rules.
ICPillar LLC v.Arm Limited (and associated entities)
This procedural order addressed preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction in a complex multi-defendant infringement case involving ICPillar LLC and various entities of the Arm group. The Court ruled that the Paris Local Division had jurisdiction, applying Article 33(1)(b) UPCA because one defendant was based in France. Crucially, the ruling broadened the interpretation of 'commercial relationship,' stating that corporate affiliation and shared commercial goals are sufficient to establish the necessary link for unified proceedings.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order addressed the protection of confidential information in a trade secret dispute between C-Kore Systems Limited and Novawell. The Court established a confidentiality club to manage documents gathered during a Saisie procedure, ensuring compliance with EU trade secret directives and UPC rules. Crucially, the ruling affirmed that mutual agreement can override strict procedural requirements regarding the composition of the club, provided fairness is maintained.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This procedural order in the Paris Local Division addressed a request by Laser Components SAS to extend its deadline for filing its defense statement. The court rejected this request, finding that the defendant could not rely on technical difficulties or the ongoing intervention of a third party (Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.) as grounds for delay. The ruling reinforces the UPC's strict adherence to procedural deadlines and the principle of judicial efficiency.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order addressed an application for review filed by Novawell against a prior evidence preservation (saisie) order initiated by C-Kore Systems Limited regarding EP2265793. Novawell challenged the legality of the seizure, particularly questioning its compliance with French national law and UPC procedures. The Paris Local Division upheld the original order, ruling that the combination of a court-appointed expert and a bailiff satisfied all legal requirements and protected the rights of defense.
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.