Dismissed
3 dismissed decisions from Paris (FR) Local Division.
Dismissed Decisions
3 cases | Page 1 of 1
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, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE LUXEMBOURG S.A., XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl and HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA
ArcelorMittal initiated an infringement action against numerous XPENG-related entities concerning a patent covering coated steel strips and stamped products. However, the claimant subsequently filed an application to withdraw the suit, citing a settlement reached with the defendants. The UPC Court granted the withdrawal request, formally closing the proceedings. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to exit litigation early when settlements are reached.
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 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.
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.