75 cases · page 2 of 3
Showing 31–59MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU
MAGUIN SAS sought review (retraction) of an ex parte order granting TIRU's application for evidence preservation measures (seizure and site visit) based on TIRU's European patent EP 3 178 578 concerning waste incineration installations. MAGUIN argued lack of urgency, absence of risk of evidence destruction, and breach of TIRU's duty of loyalty by allegedly concealing prior art. The Local Division Paris rejected all three grounds and dismissed MAGUIN's request for retraction.
Mul-T-Lock France, Mul-T-Lock Suisse v.IMC Créations
Ordonnance
GISELA MAYER GmbH v.N.J DIFFUSION SARL
GISELA MAYER GmbH, the defendant in a patent infringement action brought by N.J DIFFUSION SARL concerning European Patent EP2404516, filed a request under Rule 158 RoP seeking an order requiring N.J DIFFUSION to provide security for costs. The Local Division of Paris rejected the request, finding that N.J DIFFUSION had sufficiently demonstrated its positive financial situation and that the estimated recoverable costs (capped at 56,000 euros) did not pose a genuine risk of non-recovery. The court also rejected GISELA MAYER's subsidiary request for leave to appeal, holding that such orders are case management orders subject to panel review under Rule 333 RoP.
POSCO (Application for Public Access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in ArcelorMittal v.XPENG Group)
POSCO, a steel manufacturer and opponent of ArcelorMittal's European Patent EP 3 290 200 at the European Patent Office, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to the written pleadings and evidence in the infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against the XPENG group. ArcelorMittal opposed the application, arguing lack of direct interest and lack of a reasoned request. The Judge-Rapporteur granted POSCO access to the Statement of Claim and supporting exhibits, except for Exhibit 8 which was subject to a confidentiality order.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3404726, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The order addresses contested legal points regarding the interpretation of patent claims, the evidential value of a TESCAN ANALYTICS report, and the value of the action, while organizing the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for March 13, 2025. The defendant Laser Components SAS did not attend the conference and was informed that a default decision would be rendered regarding it.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, and Warmcook
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action filed by Hurom Co., Ltd against NUC Electronics entities and Warmcook regarding European Patent EP3155936. The defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation, and Hurom had applied to unconditionally amend the patent. The order addresses Hurom's request under Rule 36 RoP for further exchanges of written pleadings after the defendants raised new arguments on infringement in their Rejoinder.
C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell
C-Kore Systems Limited filed an infringement action against Novawell before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 265 793, and Novawell filed a counterclaim for revocation. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement on 10 December 2024, and jointly requested the Court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court confirmed the settlement, ordered that the proceedings and counterclaim be dismissed, kept the settlement details confidential, and noted the parties' agreement on costs with no order as to costs.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
Order
N.J Diffusion SARL v.Gisela Mayer GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2404516. The claimant, N.J Diffusion SARL, sought an in-person case management conference to physically examine two wigs deposited with the registry and take detailed photographs of their connection zones. The judge-rapporteur declared the request admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding the requested evidentiary measure unnecessary since enlarged photographs of the wigs were already in the rejoinder brief, and ordered the case management conference to proceed online.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG Inc. et al.
ArcelorMittal filed a patent infringement action against multiple XPENG entities and automotive dealers based on EP 3290200 before the Local Division Paris in French. The defendants applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, finding it admissible and noting that ArcelorMittal did not object on the merits, and ordered translation arrangements for the Statement of Claim and relevant exhibits.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
TIRU, holder of European Patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration installation and associated process, filed an ex parte request before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division of Paris) for the preservation of evidence and a site inspection against VALINEA ENERGIE. TIRU alleged that a furnace supplied by MAGUIN to VALINEA's Montbéliard energy recovery plant reproduced the patented invention. The court granted the requested measures, ordering a detailed description, seizure of technical documentation, and digital evidence preservation, subject to a €10,000 security deposit.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
TIRU, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration installation, sought an ex parte order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court for the preservation of evidence and site inspection against MAGUIN SAS. TIRU alleged that MAGUIN had supplied a furnace to VALINEA ENERGIE (a VEOLIA subsidiary) that infringed its patent. The court granted the application, ordering the appointment of an expert to conduct the seizure at MAGUIN's premises, subject to a €10,000 guarantee and execution by January 17, 2025.
LAMA France v.Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
This case concerns procedural requests filed by LAMA France in response to an enforcement application by Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) following a November 13, 2024 infringement decision concerning European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. LAMA sought a stay of execution, a restricted confidentiality circle limited to counsel only, and subsidiarily a €2 million guarantee. The Local Division of Paris rejected the stay request for lack of jurisdiction, partially granted the confidentiality circle request under Rule 262A RoP, and rejected the guarantee request.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited & Others
ICPillar LLC filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP3000239 against multiple ARM entities, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. Following a confidential mediation in the parallel US litigation and a settlement agreement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims. The Court permitted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, ordered full reimbursement of the security for costs, but reduced the court fee reimbursement from 60% to 40% due to the late stage of proceedings and substantial work already undertaken by the Court.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu, Inc., Abbott B.V., Abbott, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott France, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Oy
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division against multiple Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc. concerning European Patent EP 3 831 282 B1, which relates to remote monitoring of analyte measurements, particularly glucose levels in diabetes patients. Abbott filed a counterclaim for revocation, and DexCom submitted auxiliary requests to amend the patent. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding it invalid as granted and as amended under all auxiliary requests due to added-matter objections under Article 138(1)(c) EPC, and dismissed all of DexCom's infringement claims.
C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell
Procedural order from the Paris local division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2265793. The court addressed NOVAWELL's procedural requests to reject an affidavit from a prior seizure operation, to hear witnesses, and to conduct pleadings in French, all of which were dismissed. The court set the value of the case at EUR 1 million and established the timetable for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 17 December 2024.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Logistics B.V. and Others
This procedural order concerns an application by DexCom, Inc. under Rules 334(e) and 336 of the Rules of Procedure, seeking to reopen the debate after the oral hearing in an infringement action concerning European patent EP3831282. DexCom sought to introduce a November 6, 2024 decision of the Munich Regional Court concerning the parent patent EP 2,939,158. The Court held the application admissible but dismissed it as not well-grounded, finding the Munich decision concerned a different patent with different features and did not examine validity on the merits.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) brought a patent infringement action against LAMA France before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging that LAMA's compatible ink cartridges infringed European Patents EP 1 737 669 and EP 2 089 230 relating to fluid ejection devices in inkjet printers. LAMA counterclaimed for invalidity of both patents on grounds including insufficient description, extension beyond the application, and lack of patentability. The Court upheld the validity of both patents, found LAMA liable for infringement, and ordered injunctive relief, corrective measures, and information disclosure, while rejecting LAMA's preliminary questions to the CJEU and splitting costs equally between the parties.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns an application by Abbott under Rule 263 RoP for leave to amend its case following the release of version 4.12.0 of the LibreLinkUp application on September 26, 2024. DexCom opposed the application, arguing it was untimely and would unreasonably hinder its preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for October 30, 2024. The Judge-rapporteur dismissed Abbott's application, finding that while the first condition of Rule 263 (reasonable diligence) was met, the second condition (not unreasonably hindering the other party) was not satisfied given the proximity to the oral hearing.
Unilever France v.I.G.B. S.r.l.
Procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning a request by Unilever France to modify its claims regarding ancillary measures in an infringement action brought by I.G.B. S.r.l. relating to European patent EP3997002. The court held that Rule 263 RoP did not apply because Unilever's modifications concerned only the modalities of execution of ancillary measures and did not alter the object or scope of the dispute.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The court granted Hewlett-Packard Development Company's request to hear a witness at the oral hearing, who was the author of written attestations already produced and whose evidentiary value was contested by LAMA France. The court rejected LAMA France's request for simultaneous English-to-French interpretation during the witness hearing, finding it unnecessary since English is one of the two procedural languages of the Paris Local Division and the common working language of the court.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Lama France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The defendant LAMA France sought to exclude portions of the claimant HPDC's July 15, 2024 submission that addressed infringement issues, arguing these were outside the scope of the reply permitted under Rules 29(e) and 32.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The judge-rapporteur granted the request, ordering that HPDC's submission be limited to point 3 (validity) and that LAMA's corresponding August 16, 2024 submission be limited to points 3 and 4.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Lama France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action brought by Hewlett-Packard Development Company against Lama France based on European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The court ruled on Hewlett-Packard's request under Rule 191 RoP for an order compelling Lama France to disclose information about third parties involved in the production and distribution of the allegedly infringing products. The court found the request admissible and partially granted it in more limited terms than requested, ordering disclosure of certain invoices related to parallel importation from outside the EU, subject to confidentiality measures and without a penalty.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited, Dexcom France SAS
This procedural order concerns an application by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court, seeking an order requiring Dexcom entities to disclose the full distribution chain of the allegedly infringing Dexcom G6 and G7 Systems across all Relevant Contracting Member States. The Paris Local Division dismissed the application, finding it admissible in principle but not sufficiently justified or proportionate, given that Abbott had deliberately chosen to sue only one of many distributors. The Court held that Abbott could request more targeted information on the role of each defendant after a decision on the merits.
CANÈ S.p.A. v.France Développement Électronique
CANÈ S.p.A., an Italian company and proprietor of European patent EP3181168, brought a patent infringement action against France Développement Électronique (FDE) before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement through the delivery and offering of 'So-Easy' devices in France, Germany, and Italy. FDE did not contest the validity of the patent or the infringement but undertook to cease infringing activities. The parties reached a settlement agreement on June 20, 2024, which the court homologated, ordering reimbursement of €9,100 in procedural fees to CANÈ and withdrawal of certain exhibits from the proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European patent EP3404726. The intervening party Photon Wave sought suspension of the infringement proceedings pending a revocation action it had filed before the Central Division of Paris, and also requested allocation of a technically qualified judge. The Court rejected the suspension request, finding that the infringement proceedings were more advanced and that the Central Division was unlikely to retain jurisdiction, but granted the request for a technical judge.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging that Abbott's FreeStyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitoring system infringed European Patent EP 3 435 866 B1. Abbott filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Court held that the patent lacked inventive step over the prior art and revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissing all of DexCom's infringement claims and ordering DexCom to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Arm Germany GmbH & Others (ARM Limited, Allinea Software GmbH, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany d.o.o, Apical Limited) v.Ex Parte
The provided document contains only metadata indicating approval signatures and timestamps dated 20–21 May 2024, with the phrase 'Hyväksyn dokumentin' (Finnish for 'I approve the document'). No substantive judgment text, facts, legal arguments, or operative decision is available in the source material.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS (with Photon Wave Co., Ltd. as Intervening Party)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Paris, concerning an infringement action filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. against Laser Components SAS regarding European patent EP3404726. The intervening party, Photon Wave Co., Ltd. (Laser Components' supplier), sought to autonomously file a counterclaim for invalidity, obtain an extension of deadlines, and change the language of proceedings from French to English. The court rejected all of Photon Wave's procedural requests, ruling that an intervenor cannot develop autonomous claims contrary to the party it supports, and that the language change was not justified.
SVF Holdco Limited v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Paris Local Division against twelve defendants, including SVF Holdco Limited and various Arm group entities, concerning European Patent EP 3 000 239. Several defendants filed preliminary objections challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division, arguing that the commercial relationship requirement under Article 33(1)(b) UPCA was not met and that some defendants were domiciled outside the Contracting Member States. The Court rejected the preliminary objections, holding that Article 33(1)(b) UPCA applies whenever one of multiple defendants is domiciled in the territory of the Local Division, and that belonging to the same corporate group with related commercial activities constitutes a sufficient commercial relationship.
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.