Dismissed
at The Hague (NL) Local Division
12 dismissed decisions from The Hague (NL) Local Division.
Dismissed Decisions
12 cases | Page 1 of 1
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
In a procedural case concerning an infringement action, the UPC granted the withdrawal request initiated by BTL Medizintechnik GmbH against Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.. The court confirmed that since both parties had reached a settlement, the proceedings could be formally closed without further judicial intervention on merits or costs.
Amycel LLC v.Spyra
This UPC decision addressed an application by the Defendant (Spyra) to set aside a prior default judgment in an infringement action against Amycel LLC. The Court dismissed the R.356 application, finding that the procedural requirements for setting aside the default were not met due to earlier notices provided to the Defendant. Crucially, the Court also rectified the original Default-Decision, replacing the reference to Rule 356 with clear instructions on how and when an appeal could be lodged at the Court of Appeal.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v.Molecular Instruments, Inc.
In a significant decision regarding advanced diagnostics technology, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation involving RNAscope technology. The court dismissed the main infringement action brought by Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc., finding no grounds for infringement. Crucially, the court also rejected the request to revoke the patents (EP1910572 and EP2500439), thereby confirming their validity. This ruling provides clarity on the scope of protection for specialized biotech methods in the UPC.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et al.
This UPC decision confirms the withdrawal of an infringement action initiated by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC against several chemical companies. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties, indicating a likely settlement outside of court. Crucially, the Court also addressed procedural matters, granting confidentiality to the sensitive annexes and ordering a significant partial reimbursement of the claimant's legal costs.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et al.
In this procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance granted the withdrawal of an infringement action brought by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC against several chemical companies. The withdrawal was based on a mutual agreement between the parties, indicating that the dispute was resolved outside of court. Additionally, the court addressed requests for confidentiality regarding settlement details and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the initial court fees to the Claimant.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
In a provisional measures case concerning CGM technology, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought relief against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the patent EP3988471. While the Court ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, it issued a significant ruling on costs. The Court found that despite the dismissal, Abbott must pay an interim award of EUR 400,000 to the Defendants to cover their legal expenses. This decision highlights the UPC's strict approach to cost allocation in preliminary proceedings, emphasizing the principle of proper and fair administration of justice even when the main application fails.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.