Litigation
13 litigation decisions from Paris Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
13 cases | Page 1 of 1
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning EP2345029. Orange SA sought to have certain arguments in HMD Global Oy's Rejoinder Part II declared inadmissible as late filed, or alternatively to be permitted to respond to them. The court allowed Orange to submit its written response on the FRAND defence and denied HMD's subsidiary request to be allowed to respond further.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd, BYD Auto Co., Ltd, BYD Europe B.V., BYD France SAS, BYD Automotive GmbH, BYD Mobility GmbH, and BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.
BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI), a US company, brought a patent infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple BYD Group entities domiciled in China, the Netherlands, France, Germany, and the UK, concerning European Patent EP2937706. Three BYD defendants domiciled in China and the UK filed a preliminary objection challenging the court's international jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts committed in the UK and UPC member states. The court held that it lacked international jurisdiction over the UK-domiciled Defendant 7 (BYD UK) since no infringing acts were alleged within UPC or EU territory, while deferring the jurisdictional question regarding the Chinese defendants to the decision on the merits.
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v.Goodyear France S.A.S., Goodyear S.A., and Goodyear Operations S.A.
Michelin filed an infringement action against Goodyear before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court based on European patent EP 2 323 858 B1 relating to variable surface area tire treads. Goodyear counterclaimed for revocation, and Michelin filed 14 auxiliary requests to conditionally amend the patent. The Court found the patent invalid for lack of novelty and inventive step over the prior art document KUNUGI (JP 2002 063323), revoked the patent entirely, dismissed Michelin's infringement claims, and ordered Michelin to bear the legal costs.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, and Sophia Genetics GmbH
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerns Guardant Health's application for leave to appeal a cost decision issued by the Paris Local Division. The standing judge granted leave to appeal, finding that the cost decision was prematurely issued before Guardant had access to unredacted confidential documents and an opportunity to comment. However, the request to join these cost appeal proceedings with the pending provisional measures appeal (UPC_CoA_19/2026) was rejected, as cost assessment is a separate procedure with its own appeal mechanism.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Merz, the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 377 536 and French Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 13C0033 covering FAMPYRA® (fampridine) for treating multiple sclerosis, sought provisional measures against Viatris Santé for marketing a generic version (FAMPRIDINE VIATRIS®) in France. The Paris Local Division rejected the application for lack of urgency, finding Merz had delayed unreasonably. The Court of Appeal set aside that order, granted the provisional measures, and ordered Viatris Santé to refrain from marketing the generic in France until the SPC expires on 25 July 2026.
Robert Bosch Entities v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage (UPC-CoA-50/2026)
This procedural order concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the language to be used at an oral hearing. The Appellants (multiple Robert Bosch entities) requested that the hearing be held in English or that their representative be permitted to speak in English, while the Respondent (Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage) consented to the hearing being held in English. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the oral hearing of 26 May 2026 be conducted in English, without changing the language of the proceedings.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2237738. Align Technology sought to disregard the Defendants' late-filed non-infringement arguments (paragraphs 49-57 of the Rejoinder) and Exhibits AR 12 and AR 13, arguing they were raised for the first time in the Rejoinder rather than in the Statement of Defence. The Judge-rapporteur granted Align's application, declaring the new arguments and exhibits inadmissible and ordering they not be relied upon at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning a stay of cost proceedings. Following the dismissal of SharkNinja's application for provisional measures 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 in the interests of proper administration of justice.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_301/2025) and counterclaim (UPC_CFI_713/2025). Orange SA, as proprietor of European Patent EP2345029, sues HMD Global Oy for infringement, while HMD Global Oy has filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Judge-rapporteur set the total value in dispute at 3 million euros, scheduled oral hearings for 7-8 July 2026, and ordered the parties to address validity before infringement.
Bostik, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel Technologies France, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V., and Henkel Italia S.r.l.
This is an order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1, owned by Bostik, Inc. Bostik alleges infringement by certain Henkel Liofol® products, while Henkel counterclaims for revocation of the patent. Following an interim conference, the judge-rapporteur issued an order addressing procedural matters, including Bostik's partial withdrawal, the value of the case, the definition of the skilled person, applications to exclude documents, and the schedule for the oral hearing.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This case arose from SharkNinja's appeal of a Paris Local Division decision dismissing its application for provisional measures against SEB concerning EP 3 689 198. SharkNinja filed a request under R. 262A RoP to protect certain commercial market data as confidential, while SEB raised procedural objections regarding unsigned filings and requested extensions of time. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of electronic signature requirements under R. 4.1 RoP, retroactive extension of time periods under R. 9.3(a) RoP, and the scope of confidentiality protection, ultimately granting partial confidentiality protection with access limited to four named SEB employees.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524. The order amends the dates for the Oral Hearing, scheduling it for 9-11 September 2026, and sets a deadline of 21 July 2026 for the parties' representatives to file summary submissions of a maximum of 50 pages.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3852468. The order amends the dates for the Oral Hearing, scheduling it for 9–11 September 2026 in Paris, and sets a deadline of 21 July 2026 for the parties' representatives to file summary submissions of a maximum of 50 pages.
BYD Group entities v.BMS Innovations, LLC (UPC_CFI_2070/2025)
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns BYD's application for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP in an infringement action brought by BMS Innovations, LLC regarding European Patent EP2937706. The court ordered BMSI to provide security of EUR 300,000 (50% of the EUR 600,000 ceiling for recoverable costs) within one month, to be deposited into the UPC's dedicated security account, with a warning that default judgment may be issued if security is not provided.
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.