Litigation
13 litigation decisions from Paris Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
13 cases | Page 1 of 1
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
SharkNinja Operating LLC appealed an order of the Paris Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 689 198 and paid court fees of EUR 90,300 based on the case value set by the Local Division. The Court of Appeal subsequently determined the value of the appeal proceedings at EUR 3,750,000, half of the original value, resulting in a correct fee of EUR 52,400. SharkNinja applied for reimbursement of the EUR 37,900 overpayment, which the Court of Appeal granted.
BYD Company Ltd & Others v.BMS Innovations, LLC
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a Declaration of Non-Infringement (DNI) action filed by BYD entities against BMS Innovations, LLC, the proprietor of European Patent EP2937706. BMSI sought to have BYD's DNI action dismissed as inadmissible under Rules 61(1), 361, and 362 RoP, arguing that BYD failed to provide full particulars of the acts in question before filing. The Court rejected BMSI's requests in their entirety, finding that BYD's pre-filing letter of 18 May 2026 contained sufficient information and that the DNI action was not manifestly inadmissible or lacking foundation in law.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, and WARMCOOK
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 155 936, a patent owned by Korean company HUROM relating to a juice extraction module for a slow juicer. HUROM had sued NUC Korea, NUC Europe, and WARMCOOK (who market competing 'Kuvings' brand juicers) for patent infringement before the Paris Local Division, while the defendants counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal dismissed HUROM's appeal against the partial revocation of the patent and against the dismissal of its infringement claims, and also dismissed the defendants' cross-appeal in part as inadmissible and in part as unfounded.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
This case concerned an infringement action filed by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, with Vivo having filed a counterclaim for revocation of EP3407524. The parties reached a settlement and jointly applied to withdraw their respective claims. The court permitted both withdrawals, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and noted that no cost decision or court fees reimbursement application was sought.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This is an appeal from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures related to European patent EP 3 689 198, owned by SharkNinja. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance decision that had dismissed SharkNinja's application for provisional measures regarding EP 3 689 198, finding that the patent was more likely than not valid and infringed by SEB's Cookeo Infinity cooking devices. The court ordered SEB to cease infringing activities in France and Germany, imposed penalty payments for non-compliance, and required SEB to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Orange SA, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 345 029 B1 relating to digital audio signal decoding, sued HMD Global Oy before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court for infringement, alleging that HMD's Android smartphones and tablets implementing the USAC standard infringed the patent. HMD filed a counterclaim for revocation, which it made conditional upon a finding of infringement. The Court examined infringement first and concluded that Orange failed to prove infringement because the USAC decoder's transition mechanism relies on the FAC (Forward Aliasing Cancellation) tool, which transmits additional corrective information inconsistent with the patent's teaching of avoiding such additional data transmission.
Bostik, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, and Others
Bostik, Inc. filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple Henkel entities, alleging that Henkel's Loctite® Liofol cold-sealable adhesive products infringed European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1 relating to cohesive coatings for snack food packaging. Henkel filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court declared the patent invalid in its entirety (including the amended form under auxiliary request AR1) on the ground of added matter, finding that Claim 1 as granted constituted an intermediate generalization beyond the original application disclosure.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharma France, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC
The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by Viatris Santé seeking a stay of proceedings and a declination of jurisdiction in favour of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris. The court held that Article 29 of the Brussels I recast Regulation (lis pendens) did not apply because the UPC infringement action and the Paris TJ revocation/non-infringement action did not share the same cause of action. While the cases were 'related' under Article 30, the court declined to stay proceedings because the UPC decision would likely be rendered before the Paris TJ decision, and a stay would unduly delay the UPC proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is an order issued by the Judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524. The order sets procedural directions, including the value of the dispute at 10 million euros (5 million for the infringement action and 5 million for the counterclaim for revocation), scheduling oral hearings on 9-11 September 2026, and identifying the main legal points relating to claim construction, validity, infringement, FRAND matters, and interim measures.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is an order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3852468. The order sets the value of the infringement action at 5 million euros and the counterclaim for revocation at 5 million euros, totaling 10 million euros. It also establishes the procedural framework for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 9-11 September 2026, covering claim construction, validity, infringement, FRAND matters, and an interim award.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch (multiple entities)
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time under Rule 9.3 RoP. Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage had sued six Bosch group entities for infringement of EP 4144599 B1, and Bosch filed a counterclaim for revocation. Bosch sought an extension of time to file its rejoinder, arguing it only had access to a redacted version of Valeo's June 15, 2026 filing. The Judge-Rapporteur rejected the request, finding that a non-redacted version was filed simultaneously and that Bosch failed to exercise due diligence.
Robert Bosch (multiple entities) v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the competence of the Paris Local Division to hear a patent infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Bosch entities. Bosch had filed preliminary objections arguing that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA—requiring a commercial relationship between defendants and that the action relate to the same alleged infringement—were not met. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that both conditions were satisfied because the Bosch defendants belonged to the same group and were involved in the design, production, and marketing of the allegedly infringing wiper products, and because the products at issue appeared to be substantially the same.
Robert Bosch France SAS and others v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of an upcoming oral hearing in an appeal (UPC-CoA-50/2026) related to patent EP 4 144 599. The appellants, a group of Robert Bosch entities, requested that the oral hearing scheduled for 26 May 2026 be conducted in English, or alternatively that their representative be permitted to speak in English. The respondent, Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage, consented to the main request. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the oral hearing proceedings be conducted in English, without changing the official language of the appeal proceedings.
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.