The Hague (NL) Local Division
75 cases · page 3 of 3
Showing 61–74Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This procedural order addresses a request for an extension by the defendant, Orbisk B.V., in an infringement action brought by Winnow Solutions Limited concerning patent EP3198245. The Court of First Instance granted the requested extension, allowing Orbisk until September 6, 2024, to respond to the R190 evidence production request. This decision underscores the court's flexibility in managing procedural timelines while maintaining the necessity for timely handling of critical discovery requests.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (unnamed)
Amycel LLC successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC CFI regarding its patent on a hybrid mushroom strain (BR06). The court granted an interim injunction against the unnamed defendant to prevent infringement in key territories, provided Amycel deposited EUR 200,000.00 as security. This decision reinforces the enforceability of plant/microorganism patents within the UPC framework and provides immediate relief for biotech innovators.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request by Powell Gilbert LLP for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in an ongoing UPC case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court ruled that once a decision has been rendered, the general interest of the public in scrutinizing court proceedings outweighs the parties' concern over maintaining procedural integrity, even if an appeal is pending. This reinforces the principle that transparency prevails after a judgment, setting a clear precedent for post-decision document access requests.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a request for public access to court documents following the conclusion of provisional measures proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of the applicant, Powell Gilbert LLP, granting access to pleadings and evidence. The ruling established that after a final decision is rendered, the general interest of the public in scrutinizing judicial decisions outweighs the parties' concerns regarding procedural integrity, even if an appeal is pending.
Amycel LLC v.Szymon Spyra
This procedural order addressed a request for simultaneous interpretation during preliminary injunction proceedings in the UPC. The individual defendant, Szymon Spyra, requested Polish-English interpretation due to language concerns. Although the Court affirmed the right of parties to be heard, it rejected the request for court-funded interpretation (R. 109.1 RoP). Instead, the Defendant was permitted to arrange and pay for his own interpreter (R. 109.4 RoP), emphasizing that costs are generally borne by the party requesting non-official language support.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
In a provisional measures case concerning an on-body glucose sensor device (EP3831283), the UPC Court of First Instance denied the application filed by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The core finding was that the patent likely suffers from 'added matter,' making it probable that the claims would be invalidated during full proceedings. This decision not only blocked the preliminary injunction but also mandated that the applicant bear the costs of the current proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. regarding its CGM patent (EP2713879). The UPC Local Division granted the provisional measures, finding sufficient interest in the case despite initial objections from the defendants. This ruling is highly significant for medical device IP holders, demonstrating the court's willingness to grant immediate relief based on a cease-and-desist declaration when the application has legitimate purpose.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
In this provisional measures case concerning an on-body glucose sensor device, the UPC Court of First Instance denied the preliminary injunction sought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The core finding was that the patent in question (EP3831283) suffered from 'added matter,' making it highly probable that the patent would be invalidated if the full merits proceedings were held. This decision underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to the scope of claims during prosecution and litigation within the UPC framework.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought provisional measures against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. regarding the alleged infringement of its CGM device patent (EP2713879) by the GS1 device. The UPC Local Division granted a preliminary injunction, immediately prohibiting the defendants from offering or placing the infringing product on the market in the relevant member states. This ruling is significant as it demonstrates the court's willingness to grant urgent relief based on sufficient interest, even when facing initial objections.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. v.Plant-e Knowledge B.V.
This UPC decision addresses an application for the protection of confidential information (a 'confidentiality club' request) within ongoing infringement proceedings. Arkyne Technologies S.L. successfully argued that its experimental data regarding Bioo Panels constituted a protected trade secret. The court granted this request, establishing strict access controls and imposing significant penalty payments for any breach of confidentiality.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This UPC decision addresses an application for protection of confidential information filed by Arkyne Technologies S.L. The Court of First Instance found that specific experimental data regarding Bioo Panels qualified as a trade secret under Article 58 UPCA. Access to this sensitive information was strictly restricted, creating a 'confidentiality club' limited to key personnel and legal representatives of the defendant (Plant-e). This ruling reinforces the court's power to protect proprietary business knowledge during complex litigation.
Keestrack N.V. v.Geha Laverman B.V.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court granted the mutual request by Keestrack N.V. and Geha Laverman B.V. to withdraw the infringement action (UPC_CFI_379/2023). The court formally closed the case under Rule 265 RoP. Crucially, the panel also ruled in favor of the claimant's request for a partial refund of court fees, awarding 60% reimbursement based on the early stage of the proceedings.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division The Hague decided to proceed with both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning patent EP2137782. This decision was made to ensure procedural expediency and allow for a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel. This ruling highlights the court's preference for integrated proceedings when parties agree, avoiding potential delays associated with bifurcating cases.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order in Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc. confirms the ongoing infringement action concerning EP4070727, a patent related to diabetes care technology. The court accepted the parties' agreement to synchronize the filing dates for the Statements of Defence (SoD) for both defendants. This decision highlights how UPC proceedings prioritize procedural efficiency and party cooperation in managing complex litigation timelines.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This UPC CFI decision addressed a procedural hurdle in the infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Dexcom Inc. and its international subsidiary. The court accepted evidence that proper service had been effected on the defendant using an Irish process server, thereby resolving a key jurisdictional issue. This ruling allows the main infringement proceedings to move forward, setting a clear timeline for filing the Statement of Claim.
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.