Litigation
15 litigation decisions from Paris (FR) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
15 cases | Page 1 of 1
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 and COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE ANDAUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris in an infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS based on European patent EP294090. The defendants (OpenAI, Adobe, Truepic, Joint Development Foundation Projects, and C2PA) filed requests to strike certain arguments, evidence, and a new patent modification request from KEEEX's June 5, 2026 memorandum. The judge-rapporteur partially granted and partially rejected these requests, declaring certain infringement-related
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between Bostik, Inc. and several Henkel entities regarding European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1. Bostik alleges that certain Henkel products in the Liofol® range infringe its patent, while Henkel has filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Court of First Instance held an interim conference on 1 June 2026, during which the parties discussed the main legal issues including claim interpretation, patent validity, alleged infringement acts, and corrective measures.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This is an order issued by the Paris Local Division following an interim conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2345029 owned by Orange SA. The order addresses procedural matters including the value of the dispute (set at 3 million euros), recoverable costs, confidentiality arrangements, and the organization of the upcoming oral hearing. The court scheduled a public hearing on 7 July for validity and infringement issues, followed by a non-public hearing on 8 July for non-technical matters.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This order concerns a stay of cost proceedings in a dispute between SharkNinja Operating LLC and several SEB entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Following the dismissal of SharkNinja's provisional measures application based on EP 3 689 198 and SharkNinja's subsequent appeal, SEB filed an application for costs. Both parties agreed that the cost proceedings should be stayed until the Court of Appeal delivers its judgment, and the judge-rapporteur granted the stay.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH and Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
This procedural order concerns an application by Align Technology, Inc. under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Proceedings to disregard late-filed non-infringement arguments raised by the Angelalign defendants in their rejoinder. Align argued that the defendants introduced new non-infringement arguments regarding features 1.3 and 1.3.4 of Claim 1 for the first time in their rejoinder, contrary to the front-loaded nature of the proceedings. The defendants requested dismissal of Align's requests and an opportunity to reply in writing to the disputed paragraphs and exhibits.
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 and COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE ANDAUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
Procedural order of the UPC Local Division Paris concerning a request for revision (R. 333 RoP) filed by ADOBE against an earlier order of the judge-rapporteur dated 24 April 2026. ADOBE sought to have KEEEX's claim for provisional damages (€120 million), introduced in its reply brief of 5 March 2026, declared inadmissible or summarily dismissed. The panel rejected ADOBE's revision request in its entirety, confirming that the provisional damages claim was consistent with the procedural protocol,
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE, MAGUIN SAS
TIRU, a French waste-to-energy company and subsidiary of the PAPREC Group, sued VALINEA ENERGIE (a VEOLIA subsidiary operating an energy recovery unit in Montbéliard) and MAGUIN SAS (manufacturer of the combustion cell) for infringement of European patent EP 3 178 578 B1. After the Central Division of Paris upheld the patent in modified form, the Local Division of Paris rejected all of TIRU's infringement claims (both literal and by equivalence), rejected VALINEA's counterclaim for abusive proce
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd, BYD Auto Co., Ltd, BYD Europe B.V. BYD France SAS BYD Automotive GmbH BYD Mobility GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application for security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action. BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI) sued multiple BYD Group entities for infringement of European Patent EP2937706 before the Paris Local Division. BYD sought security for costs in the amount of EUR 400,000, arguing that BMSI is a financially empty shell similar to a non-practicing entity, with no publicly disclosed financial information or liquid assets. BMSI countered by proposing a reduced security amount of EUR 300,000 and a seven-week timeframe for provision.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
A procedural order issued in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo-related entities concerning European Patent No. EP3852468. Following an online case management meeting, the Judge-Rapporteur rescheduled the oral hearing dates previously set in January 2026 and ordered the parties to file consolidated summary submissions to streamline the proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo-related entities concerning European Patent No. EP3407524. Following an online case management meeting on 21 May 2026, the Judge-Rapporteur amended the previously scheduled oral hearing dates and ordered the parties' representatives to file a summary submission of up to 50 pages by 21 July 2026. The order does not address the substantive merits of the infringement dispute.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France et al.
Procedural order of the UPC Local Division Paris in proceedings concerning EP 3 689 198, addressing confidentiality and translation exemption requests in connection with Seb's application for costs following the dismissal of SharkNinja's provisional measures application. The judge-rapporteur classified certain redacted information as confidential, restricted access to a limited confidentiality circle, and granted Seb an exemption from translating specified French-language exhibits and case law i
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v.Goodyear France S.A.S., Goodyear S.A., Goodyear Operations S.A.
Michelin sued Goodyear for infringing European patent EP 2 323 858 B1 relating to a 'Variable surface area tire tread.' Goodyear counterclaimed for revocation. The Paris Local Division of the UPC found the patent lacked novelty and inventive step over the prior art document KUNUGI (JP 2002 063323), revoked the patent entirely, and dismissed all of Michelin's infringement claims, ordering Michelin to bear the costs.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.1. BYD Company Ltd - 2. BYD Auto Co., Ltd 3. BYD Europe B.V. 4. BYD France SAS 5. BYD Automotive GmbH 6. BYD Mobility GmbH 7. BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a preliminary objection filed by three BYD Group entities challenging the Paris Local Division's international jurisdiction in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2937706. The defendants domiciled in China and the United Kingdom argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over them, particularly because the Chinese defendants were not alleged to have committed any infringing act within the territory of an EU Member State. The court upheld the preliminary objection, holding that it has no international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in third countries (non-UPC, non-EU) who are not alleged to have committed infringing acts within EU territory.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
SharkNinja Operating LLC filed an application for provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against several entities of the SEB group, alleging infringement of European patents EP 3 689 198 and EP 3 689 201. The dispute concerns SEB's launch of the 'Cookeo Infinity' range of cooking devices, which includes an air frying mode, allegedly imitating SharkNinja's patented technology. The decision addresses the legal principle that lack of novelty may arise from implicit disclosure in prior art, where a person skilled in the art would objectively consider the result as necessarily implied.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Orange SA against HMD Global Oy regarding European Patent EP2345029. Orange sought to have certain arguments from HMD's Rejoinder Part II declared inadmissible as late-filed, or alternatively to be permitted to file supplementary written submissions in response. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that, in the interests of fairness and adversarial proceedings, Orange should have the final say on the FRAND defence raised by HMD, and accordingly allowed Orange's proposed written response on the FRAND defence while denying HMD's subsidiary request to respond further.
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.