Granted
at The Hague (NL) Local Division
13 granted decisions from The Hague (NL) Local Division.
Granted Decisions
13 cases | Page 1 of 1
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al.
In this UPC case concerning the infringement of a patent covering Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene Multifilament Yarn, Avient Protective Materials B.V. sought an alternative method of service against its Chinese defendants. After months of unsuccessful attempts via The Hague Service Convention (HSC), the Court ruled in favor of the Claimant. The court authorized service by German bailiff at a trade fair in Düsseldorf, ensuring that the legal proceedings could proceed without delay or risk of default judgment.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. v.Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. successfully obtained an ex parte order from the UPC Local Division in The Hague to preserve evidence against Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. This urgent measure was sought during a trade fair, targeting the alleged infringing seed counting machine (SD-14010). The court ruled that the applicant met all necessary criteria under UPC rules for interim measures, allowing for the seizure and detailed examination of the device to confirm patent infringement. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's willingness to grant swift provisional relief when evidence preservation is critical before a main action commences.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.