Denied
22 denied decisions from Paris (FR) Local Division.
Denied Decisions
22 cases | Page 1 of 1
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NJ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.