102 cases · page 3 of 4
Showing 61–89GISELA MAYER GmbH v.Respondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 26/02/2025 Concernant une demande en garantie des frais (Règle 158 Rdp) REQUÉRANT - DEFENDEUR GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsdorfer Straße 3 87700 - Memmingen
POSCO v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by POSCO, a member of the public, seeking inspection of written pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against multiple XPENG group companies and their European distributors based on European Patent EP 3 290 200. POSCO, which has filed an opposition against the same patent at the European Patent Office, argued that access to the case file is necessary to analyze ArcelorMittal's claim interpretation in the UPC proceedings, which is directly relevant to the validity discussion in the parallel EPO opposition appeal. The XPENG defendants left the decision to the discretion of the Court.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 17/02/2025 suivant la conférence de mise en état (R. 105.5 RdP) DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par Pauline Debré 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-g
Hurom Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request under Rule 36 RoP filed by the Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd, seeking further exchanges of written pleadings in an infringement action based on European Patent EP3155936 against NUC Electronics entities and Warmcook. Hurom sought a declaration that certain sections of its Rejoinder challenged by the Defendants were admissible, or alternatively, permission for both parties to submit further statements. The Defendants opposed the request, arguing that the allegedly new arguments were mere clarifications and that, as defendants in infringement proceedings, they should have the last word.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_468/2023 Final decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 29/01/2025 concerning confirmation by the Court of a settlement APPLICANT C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED 3 Bramley's Barn, The Menagerie, Skipwith Road - YO19 6ET - Escrick - GB Rep
Photon Wave Co., Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This case concerns the admissibility of a revocation action filed by Photon Wave Co., Ltd. against Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s European patent EP 3404726 before the Paris Local Division. The revocation action was originally brought before the Paris Central Division but was transferred to the Local Division following a preliminary objection order. Seoul Viosys argued that the Local Division lacks jurisdiction under Article 33(4) UPCA and that the action is manifestly inadmissible because Photon Wave, as an intervener in a pending infringement action, is restricted to filing a counterclaim for revocation rather than an independent revocation action.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 20/01/2025 REQUÉRANT N.J DIFFUSION SARL 44 Rue Paul Valéry 75016 PARIS - FR Représenté par Catherine Mateu INTIMÉ - DEFENDEUR GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsd
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, BI v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the President of the Local Division Paris concerning the language of proceedings in a patent infringement action. ArcelorMittal filed an infringement claim on 18 October 2024 against multiple XPENG entities and their European distributors/dealers based on European Patent EP 3290200 relating to coated steel strips. The Defendants filed a preliminary objection regarding the language of the proceedings, and the Court addressed translation arrangements, granting the parties 10 days to agree on which annexes should be provided in English.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_814/2024 Ordonnance de conservation des preuves (saisie) et de descente sur les lieux du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23/12/2024 Concernant R.192 à 199 RdP DEMANDEUR TIRU 7, rue du Dr Lancereaux 75008 Paris Représenté
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_813/2024 Ordonnance de conservation des preuves (saisie) et de descente sur les lieux du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23/12/2024 concernant R.192 à 199 RdP DEMANDEUR TIRU 7, rue du Dr Lancereaux 75008 Paris Représenté
LAMA FRANCE v.Respondent
Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 19/12/2024 REQUÉRANT LAMA FRANCE 241 Rue du Companet 69140 - Rillieux-la-Pape - FR Représenté par Henri BOURGEOIS DEFENDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_495/2023 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 13/12/2024 APPLICANT in App_61630/2024 – RESPONDENT in App_62436/2024 ICPillar LLC 4265 San Felipe Street, Suite 1100 77027 - Houston, Texas – US Represented by Lionel Martin RESPOND
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
1. The order pursuant to Rule 36 RoP issued by the judge-rapporteur relates to adding some argu- ments to the debate related to some specific terms regarding claim interpretation, but it did not authorise the defendant to raise a new ground for revocation. The UPC procedure is a front-loaded system and the Court finds no legitimate reason for the defendant, which had already stated its own claim interpretation in its Statement of Defence and counterclaim, to raise a new ground for revocation at
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.Novawell
This procedural order was issued by the Paris Local Division following an interim conference held on 22 November 2024 in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent No. EP2265793 owned by C-Kore Systems Limited against French defendant Novawell. Novawell requested the rejection of exhibit 57 from C-Kore's unredacted statement, the hearing of the court's expert Mr. Sartorius and bailiff Me Labadie as witnesses, and simultaneous interpretation with French-language pleadings at the oral hearing, all of which C-Kore contested. The court addressed the scope of professional secrecy applicable to the affidavit submitted by Mr. Wlodarczyk, the representative present during the saisie (evidence preservation) operations, concluding that the information provided related to how the seizure measures were carried out and therefore fell outside the scope of professional secrecy under both UPC and French national rules.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_395/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 25/11/2024 APPLICANT 1) DexCom, Inc. 6340 Sequence Drive 92121 - San Diego, CA - US Represented by Anne-Charlotte Le Bihan RESPONDENTS 1) Abbott Logistics B.V. Postbus 365
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 13/11/2024 ABSTRACT : 1. Conformément à l'article 69 de la Convention sur les brevets européens (CBE) et du Protocole sur son interprétation, la présente Cour
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_395/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 11/10/2024 APPLICANTS 1) Abbott Logistics B.V. Postbus 365 8000AJ Zwolle – NL Represented by Christian Dekoninck 2) 3) Abbott Diagnostics GmbH Max-Planck-Ring 2 65205 Wies
Unilever France v.Respondent
1 Paris local Division UPC_CFI_494/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/09/2024 REQUERANT (DEFENDEUR dans la procédure principale) Unilever France 20 rue des Deux Gares - 92500 - Rueil Malmaison CEDEX - FR Rep
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/08/2024 concernant une demande d’audition de témoin à l’audience orale (R.176 et 177 RdP) ABSTRACT : 1. Les questions orales posées au témoin, auteur
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 21/08/2024 DEMANDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Harris County, TX, 77389, USA - 77389 - Harris County - US Rep
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 02/08/2024 concernant R.191 RdP DEMANDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Harris County, TX, 77389, USA - 77389 - H
Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_425/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 31/07/2024 concerning R. 191 RoP APPLICANT 1) Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. 1360 South Loop Road 94502 - Alameda - US Represented by Christian Dekoninck RESPONDENTS 1) Dexcom
CANÈ S.p.A. v.FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_419/2023 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 26/07/2024 DEMANDEUR 1) CANÈ S.p.A. Via Cuorgnè 42/A 10098 - Rivoli (TO) - IT Représenté par Konstantin Schallmoser DÉFENDEUR 1) FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/07/2024 DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par Pauline Debré 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-gil, Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do - Répub
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
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities concerning European Patent EP3435866, which relates to an analyte monitoring system (continuous glucose monitoring technology). The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Paris Local Division addressed jurisdictional questions regarding the scope of dispute, the applicability of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the validity of the patent, finding novelty and no added subject-matter, but concluding that the claimed invention lacked inventive step.
Arm Germany GmbH, ARM Limited, Allinea Software GmbH, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany d.o.o, Apical Limited v.Respondent
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.Photon Wave Co.,Ltd., Laser Components SAS
L’intervenant ne peut développer des prétentions contraires à la partie qu’il soutient et ne peut développer de manière autonome des demandes et selon des modalités procédurales distinctes de celles offertes à la partie qu’elle soutient. Dès lors, l’intervenant n’ayant pas déposé de demande reconventionnelle en nullité dans le délai imparti à la personne qu’il soutient, ne peut pas prétendre à une extension des délais pour déposer une demande autonome. Même si le brevet européen en litige a été
SVF Holdco v.ICPillar LLC
In the case of multiple defendants, if one of the defendants has its residence within the territory of the Local Division seized, Article 33(1)(b) UPCA must be applied, regardless of whether the other defendants are based inside or outside the Contracting Member States or inside or outside the EU. Hence the only requirements to be met are: 1) the multiple defendants have a commercial relationship, 2) the action relates to the same alleged infringement. The requirement of a “commercial relationsh
NOVAWELL v.C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_397/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/03/2024 APPLICANT: C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED 3 Bramley's Barn The Menagerie, Skipwith Road - YO19 6ET - Escrick - GB Represented by Denis Schertenleib RESPONDENT: NOVAWELL
Laser Components SAS v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance procédurale du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 13/03/2024 DEMANDEUR: Laser Components SAS 45B Route des Gardes 92190 Meudon - FR Representé par Helge von Hirschhausen DEFENDEUR: Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd 6
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.