Denied
at The Hague (NL) Local Division
10 denied decisions from The Hague (NL) Local Division.
Denied Decisions
10 cases | Page 1 of 1
Unnamed Applicant v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a request for access to the case file of an ongoing provisional measures action (UPC_CFI_830/2025). An unnamed applicant, claiming to represent a competitor in the CGM field, sought access to conduct an FTO analysis. The Court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that vague claims of 'specific interest' are insufficient and that procedural integrity must be maintained, especially in fast-tracked proceedings.
City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v.Maars Holding B.V., Maars Projecten B.V., Maars Partitioning Systems B.V., Maars France
In this UPC case, City Glass sued Maars for infringing its patent covering a unique self-locking glazing system. The Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding that the alleged use of Horizon Products did not constitute infringement under EP 1651838. Crucially, the court also rejected Maars' counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. This decision highlights the high bar for proving both infringement and invalidity in UPC proceedings.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC sought provisional measures against German distributor RiVOLUTiON GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of their staple cartridge patent EP3689262. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, meaning no immediate injunction was granted. However, the court concurrently confirmed a preliminary confidentiality order and established a confidentiality club, setting procedural groundwork for future litigation.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In this procedural order, HL Display AB opposed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s request to deposit physical objects related to the infringement case EP2432351. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the application. The court found that BSRP failed to provide a sufficient justification for filing these exhibits late, leading to the rejection of their procedural motion.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In a procedural order concerning the deposit of physical objects, HL Display AB successfully opposed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s request to submit exhibits related to its products. The UPC Court of First Instance rejected the application because the defendant failed to provide a timely and adequate explanation for the late filing of these crucial items. This decision underscores the court's strict adherence to procedural deadlines and requirements in managing evidence during infringement actions.
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.
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
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.
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.