The Hague (NL) Local Division
75 cases · page 2 of 3
Showing 31–59AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V.; Troy Chemie GmbH; Azelis Group N.V.; Azelis SA; Azelis Netherlands B.V.; Azelis Benelux
In a recent procedural order, the UPC granted a stay to an infringement action involving AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC and several defendants including Troy Chemical Company B.V. The parties mutually requested the pause of proceedings until February 13, 2026. This decision highlights the court's flexibility in managing complex litigation timelines, allowing both claimant and defendant time to prepare or resolve underlying issues before proceeding with the infringement claims.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This UPC decision between Winnow Solutions Limited and Orbisk B.V. concerns the infringement of EP 3198245, a patent covering systems for monitoring food waste in commercial kitchens. The Court of First Instance delivered a detailed ruling on the merits, addressing both infringement claims and procedural applications. Notably, the court imposed significant cost obligations on Winnow Solutions Limited while also providing guidance on cost allocation in cases involving partial revocation.
Moderna, Inc. v.Genevant Sciences GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving Moderna and Genevant Sciences, the Court addressed a procedural application seeking an extension of time to file responses following extensive confidentiality proceedings (R.262A). The Judge-rapporteur ruled that while extensions are generally viewed narrowly, the delay in accessing unredacted confidential information justified a limited extension for the claimants. This decision reinforces the balance between maintaining the UPC's swift procedural timeline and ensuring parties have adequate time to prepare their defense against complex claims.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This UPC decision between Winnow Solutions Limited and Orbisk B.V. addresses the infringement of EP 3198245, a patent covering food waste monitoring systems. The court provided detailed rulings on cost allocation in complex litigation scenarios involving partial revocation. The judgment is significant for practitioners as it clarifies the financial consequences when a patent's validity is only challenged or upheld partially.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.; Philips RS North America LLC; Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case concerning advanced brain monitoring technology, the claimant sought permission to amend its statement of claim to reflect a newer version (B2) of the patent instead of the original version (B1). The Court of First Instance dismissed the application for amendment. However, recognizing the technical reality that the B2 version was retroactively valid from the grant date, the court admitted the revised pleading into the case file, ensuring the proceedings proceed on the correct legal basis.
Moderna, Inc. v.Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division issued an R.262A Order in the infringement proceedings between Moderna and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. The order formalizes a detailed confidentiality regime designed to protect trade secrets related to Moderna's Spikevax® and mRESVIA® products. This decision is crucial for biotech companies, demonstrating how the UPC facilitates the protection of sensitive manufacturing data during litigation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This UPC decision addresses procedural challenges raised by the defendants (Menarini and Sinocare) seeking to postpone an oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings initiated by Abbott regarding CGM system patents. The court firmly rejected the postponement requests, emphasizing the inherent urgency of interim relief applications. This ruling reinforces the principle that scheduling decisions in preliminary relief cases are subject to strict judicial discretion, requiring special circumstances for deviation.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc.
In a complex biotech patent dispute involving Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and numerous Moderna entities, the UPC issued a procedural order in June 2025. The defendants sought to challenge prior case management orders and preliminary objections raised by the claimants across two infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025). The court granted the claimants a week to respond, indicating that the core substantive issues remain pending while procedural challenges are addressed.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna, Inc.
This procedural order addressed requests from Moderna to rectify previous court orders concerning the deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections (PO). The UPC Court of First Instance found that the dates of service mentioned in the original PO Order contained clerical errors. By correcting these dates, the court confirmed that all defendants, including various international Moderna entities, had filed their preliminary objections timely and were therefore admissible to defend themselves in the main infringement proceedings.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Biotech UK Limited (and all Moderna group entities)
This UPC Procedural Order addressed preliminary objections raised by the Moderna group against Arbutus Biopharma Corporation's infringement claims concerning two biotech patents (EP2279254 and EP4241767). Moderna challenged the Court's jurisdiction, particularly regarding long-arm jurisdiction for various international subsidiaries. The Hague Local Division largely rejected these objections, confirming its competence to hear the case. This ruling is significant as it clears a major procedural hurdle, allowing the substantive infringement claims to move forward.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna, Inc.
In a procedural order concerning two infringement actions, the UPC Local Division dismissed most preliminary objections raised by Moderna against Genevant Sciences. Moderna had challenged the court's jurisdiction and competence for various defendants and patents. The Court ruled that the patent was validly opted-out and withdrawn, thereby confirming the UPC's authority to hear the case. While some issues regarding long-arm jurisdiction remain pending in the main proceedings, the path is cleared for the infringement claims to move forward.
Hand Held Products Inc. v.Scandit AG
This UPC decision confirms the closure of a complex infringement and revocation proceeding between Hand Held Products Inc. and Scandit AG. The parties voluntarily withdrew both claims after reaching an out-of-court settlement. While no substantive judgment on patent validity or infringement was rendered, the court formally closed the actions and granted reimbursement for 60% of the associated court fees. This case highlights how settlements can efficiently resolve complex UPC disputes.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna (various entities)
This UPC decision addresses procedural challenges arising from the complex, multinational structure of a corporate group (Moderna). Claimants sought extensions for defendants due to varying service dates across multiple jurisdictions. The Court rejected the blanket extension requests but imposed a single, unified deadline for filing Statements of Defense. This ruling highlights how the UPC manages procedural complexity when dealing with global entities, prioritizing judicial efficiency while ensuring all parties have adequate time.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna (various entities)
In a complex case involving fifteen Moderna entities across multiple jurisdictions, the UPC addressed procedural challenges related to service and scheduling deadlines. Claimants Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma sought extensions due to the global nature of their defendants. The Court rejected the specific extension requests but issued an order setting a unified deadline for all Defendants to file their Statements of Defense, demonstrating how the UPC manages multi-jurisdictional litigation efficiently.
Amycel LLC v.-
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application for re-establishment of rights (R.320) filed by the Defendant after missing the deadline to file a Statement of Defence in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, finding that the representative failed to demonstrate 'all due care' despite his illness. This ruling underscores the strict adherence required to procedural deadlines within the UPC framework.
Amycel LLC v.E
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application for re-establishment of rights (R.320). The Defendant sought to reinstate the deadline to file its Statement of Defence due to illness. However, the Court rejected this request, finding that the representative failed to exercise all due care in managing the filing process. This rejection means the infringement action will proceed to a decision by default against the Defendant.
DATA DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v.DOYTEC AUTOMATION LTD.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC granted an order to preserve evidence in a dispute concerning item dispensing technology. Data Detection Technologies Ltd. sought to seize and document a competitor's machine (C-1012) displayed at a trade fair, alleging it infringed EP 2569713. The Court found that DDT had sufficiently established its patent rights and presented reasonable evidence of potential infringement, allowing the urgent ex-parte measure to proceed.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S Machinery B.V.
This procedural order addressed the scope of access to an expert's report following a seizure of documents related to alleged patent infringement (EP4171996). The Court balanced the need for the claimant to assess its case against the defendant's interests in confidentiality. By finding that the Defendant had not raised objections and the information was limited, the UPC granted access to specific employees of the claimant, allowing them to evaluate potential infringement and determine next steps.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal of all claims in the case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom International Limited regarding patent EP4070727. Both parties mutually consented to drop their infringement and revocation actions. The court subsequently declared the proceedings closed, setting the value of the cases at EUR 4 million.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural order issued on January 29, 2025, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed all parties in the dispute between Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc. to withdraw their respective claims for infringement and revocation concerning patent EP4070727. While the substantive dispute was dropped, the court addressed procedural matters, setting the value of the cases at EUR 4 million and ordering a partial reimbursement of court fees.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal of all claims in the case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc. Both parties mutually consented to drop their infringement claim and counterclaims for revocation regarding EP4070727. The court formally closed the proceedings, noting that no cost decision was required.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V. successfully obtained a procedural order from the UPC Court of First Instance to preserve evidence against P.T.S. Machinery B.V. The case revolves around EP4171996, a patent covering modular trailer systems and jack cradles used for heavy lifting. Mammoet alleged that PTS was producing and supplying an infringing 'Mechanical Construction' component. The court granted the application, compelling PTS to provide access to its premises and digital data under strict conditions.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (unnamed)
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of service of process in a UPC infringement action. The court ruled that despite initial difficulties and subsequent refusal by the Defendant to accept documents, Amycel's alternative methods of delivery qualified as 'good service.' This ruling establishes a clear precedent for how parties can successfully effect service when standard procedures fail, provided efficiency and fairness are maintained.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Plant-e successfully sued Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) in the UPC for infringement of its patent covering devices and methods that convert light energy into electricity using living plants. The court ruled that the patent was valid and found infringement based on equivalence, not just literal reading. This decision reinforces the application of established national case law tests when assessing non-literal infringement within the unified patent system.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In a significant ruling for green technology patents, the UPC found that Arkyne Technologies S.L. infringed Plant-e Knowledge B.V.'s patent EP2137782 by equivalence. The court applied a detailed four-part test to determine if the respondent's biofuel cell products fell within the scope of the claims, confirming both validity and infringement. This decision underscores the importance of robust claim construction and the application of the equivalence doctrine in complex technological fields like microbial fuel cells.
City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v.Maars Holding B.V.
In this UPC Security Application, Maars successfully argued that it required security for legal costs due to concerns over City Glass's financial situation and its non-EU base in India. The Court ruled in favor of Maars, ordering the Indian claimant to provide a deposit of EUR 19,000. This decision highlights the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness for defendants against the need to protect IP rights, while still accommodating international parties.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
In a procedural ruling concerning infringement proceedings, the UPC CFI partially granted Winnow Solutions Limited's request to compel Orbisk B.V. to produce evidence regarding its food waste monitoring system (Orbi). The court recognized that while the initial requests were broad, specific technical documentation detailing how the Orbi System categorizes and corrects erroneous weights was necessary for a proper evaluation of infringement. This decision underscores the UPC's willingness to manage discovery in complex cases, balancing the claimant's need for evidence against the respondent's concerns over confidentiality.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
In this UPC case, Winnow Solutions Limited sought evidence from Orbisk B.V. to support its infringement claim regarding the food waste monitoring patent EP3198245. The Court of First Instance partially granted the request for production of documents (R. 190 RoP), compelling Orbisk to provide specific technical specifications on how their Orbi System functions, particularly concerning data categorization and error correction. This decision underscores the court's willingness to facilitate evidence gathering in complex infringement cases while maintaining safeguards for confidential business information.
Dexcom International Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action against EP4070727, the UPC granted Dexcom International Limited leave to amend its counterclaim. Dexcom sought a declaration that their G7-System and G7-Receiver did not infringe the patent after Abbott narrowed its initial claims. The court ruled in favor of Dexcom, accepting that they could not have reasonably anticipated Abbott's claim withdrawal at the outset, thereby allowing them to seek legal certainty regarding non-infringement.
Dexcom International Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the UPC granted Dexcom International Limited leave to amend its counter claim. The amendment sought a declaration that the G7-System and G7-Receiver fall outside the scope of protection of EP 4070727 B1. The court found that Dexcom's timing was reasonable, as they were responding to Abbott's subsequent withdrawal of claims against those specific products, setting a precedent for procedural flexibility in UPC litigation.
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.