Paris (FR) Local Division
65 cases · page 3 of 3
Showing 61–64ICPillar LLC v.Arm Limited, Apical Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, SVF Holdco (and other ARM group companies)
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action against the ARM group, ICPillar LLC successfully petitioned the UPC Court of First Instance for permission to use an alternative method of service for four UK-based defendants. Since standard international service was pending, the claimant used courier services and bailiff reports to prove delivery. The court accepted this 'good service' request, confirming that procedural flexibility is available when ensuring timely notification in complex cross-border cases.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
In a procedural ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed a request by Laser Components SAS to change the language of proceedings from French to English. Although the patent in question (EP3404726) was granted in English, the Court found that there were insufficient grounds based on convenience or equity to mandate this change. The decision reinforces the procedural flexibility and the importance of respecting the initial filing choice made by parties in UPC litigation.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Newyu,Inc., etc.)
This procedural order in the DexCom v. Abbott case addressed the complexities of managing deadlines when multiple defendants are involved. The UPC granted an extension and aligned the Statement of Defence filing date for all 14 entities based on a mutual agreement between the parties. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach to ensuring fair procedure while accommodating the logistical challenges presented by large, multi-jurisdictional litigation.
ICPillar LLC v.Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Hyperglance limited, SVF Holdco, Apical Limited (and other defendants)
This procedural order addressed the service of a Statement of Claim in an infringement action involving ICPillar LLC and various ARM group entities. The Court granted authorization for alternative service methods specifically for the Polish defendant, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o., due to delivery issues. However, the request for alternative service concerning UK defendants was dismissed because the Hague Service Convention process was still considered reasonable and in progress.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order in the Abbott v. Dexcom case addresses complexities arising from service issues across multiple defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur, utilizing UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), granted an extension and aligned the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence for all three Dexcom entities. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach to ensuring fair procedural timelines in multi-defendant infringement actions.
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.