Granted
8 granted decisions from Paris (FR) Local Division.
Granted Decisions
8 cases | Page 1 of 1
Gowling WLG v.Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France-Viatris Santé
This procedural order addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a third-party firm of UPC representatives, seeking access to the case file in an ongoing provisional measures dispute between Merz and Viatris. The Court balanced the need for transparency with the protection of confidential information. Access was granted selectively, allowing the applicant to review extracts relevant to the legal issue of 'unreasonable delay,' while ensuring personal data was anonymized.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In this preliminary objection case, Sun Patent Trust successfully defended its infringement action against Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether the UPC had jurisdiction to rule on FRAND terms alongside patent infringement of an SEP. The Court decisively rejected VIVO's argument, establishing that determining FRAND compliance is not a standalone claim but rather a necessary condition precedent for granting relief in an infringement action under Article 32(1)(a) UPCA. This ruling reinforces the integrated nature of SEP litigation within the UPC framework.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a significant preliminary objection ruling, the UPC rejected Vivo's challenge to its jurisdiction over an SEP infringement case. The core dispute centered on whether seeking a determination of FRAND terms constituted an independent claim outside the scope of the Unified Patent Convention (UPC). The Court clarified that while FRAND assessment is critical for SEPs, it is intrinsically linked to the main action for infringement and does not render the entire claim inadmissible. This decision reinforces the UPC's competence in handling complex SEP litigation involving both infringement and licensing conditions.
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
This procedural order addressed POSCO's request to access confidential pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against the XPENG group. POSCO sought access to inform its parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO regarding patent EP3290200, which is central to both actions. The Court ultimately granted limited access, recognizing that claim interpretation must be consistent across both infringement and revocation proceedings, while maintaining confidentiality for sensitive technical exhibits.
ArcelorMittal v.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, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by multiple XPENG-related entities and others to change the language of an infringement case from French (or German) to English. The court granted this application, citing fairness and convenience, noting that English was the patent's granting language and widely used among the parties. Crucially, the Claimant, ArcelorMittal, was ordered to provide translations of its Statement of Claim at its own expense. This decision sets a practical precedent regarding procedural efficiency in multinational UPC cases.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
TIRU successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC Local Division of Paris to investigate alleged infringement by MAGUIN SAS regarding a waste incineration patent (EP3178578). The court authorized physical seizure of documents, digital data preservation, and site inspections at VALINEA ENERGIE's facilities. This decision is crucial for TIRU as it allows them to gather necessary evidence before initiating the main infringement proceedings under the UPC.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
TIRU successfully obtained provisional measures (evidence preservation and on-site inspection) against VALINEA ENERGIE regarding alleged infringement of EP3178578. The court recognized its jurisdiction and found that TIRU adequately demonstrated the necessity and scope of the evidence required to prove potential counterfeiting of a waste incinerator technology. This decision is crucial for patent holders needing immediate access to technical documentation before formal litigation begins.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order addressed the protection of confidential information in a trade secret dispute between C-Kore Systems Limited and Novawell. The Court established a confidentiality club to manage documents gathered during a Saisie procedure, ensuring compliance with EU trade secret directives and UPC rules. Crucially, the ruling affirmed that mutual agreement can override strict procedural requirements regarding the composition of the club, provided fairness is maintained.
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.