Litigation
at The Hague (NL) Local Division
82 litigation decisions from The Hague (NL) Local Division.
Litigation Decisions
82 cases | Page 3 of 3
Orbisk B.V. v.Winnow Solutions Limited
Procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning an infringement action over EP 3 198 245 B1. The judge-rapporteur granted Orbisk B.V. an extension until 6 September 2024 to file its reply to Winnow Solutions Limited's Rule 190 RoP request for evidence production, rejecting Orbisk's request to align the reply deadline with its Statement of Defence.
Amycel LLC v.[Defendant]
Amycel LLC, owner of European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 directed to a hybrid Agaricus bisporus mushroom strain BR06 (sold as 'Heirloom'), sought provisional measures against a Polish mushroom farmer selling a competing brown mushroom strain called 'Cayene'. The Local Division The Hague found that mushroom strains are not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC, that the patent was valid and infringed, and granted the requested provisional measures including an injunction, delivery-up order, customer disclosure, and penalty payments, subject to Amycel providing EUR 200,000 in security.
Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Public Access to the Register) v.Ex Parte
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1 RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded proceedings (UPC_CFI_131/2024) concerning EP3831283, a patent owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The main proceeding parties (Abbott, Sibio Technology Limited, and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) opposed the application, arguing that an appeal was pending and that Powell Gilbert lacked a sufficiently specific interest. The Local Division The Hague granted the application, applying the criteria from the Court of Appeal's decision in Ocado v AutoStore, and also granted leave to appeal.
Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Public Access to the Register) v.Ex Parte
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from provisional measures proceedings (UPC_CFI_130/2024) concerning patent EP2713879, involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. as applicant and Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. as defendants. Both Abbott and Sibio c.s. opposed the request, arguing that the proceedings were still ongoing due to a pending appeal and that Powell Gilbert lacked a sufficiently specific legitimate interest. The Local Division The Hague applied the criteria from Ocado v AutoStore and granted access, holding that the general public interest in understanding and scrutinizing court decisions outweighs the integrity of proceedings once first instance proceedings have ended, even where an appeal is pending.
Spyra v.Amycel LLC (Procedural Order on R. 109 RoP)
A procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning a request by the Defendant, Szymon Spyra, for simultaneous interpretation between English and Polish during an oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings. The court rejected the request for court-arranged interpretation under R. 109.1 RoP (whose costs would become costs of the proceedings) but allowed the Defendant to engage an interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP2713879 relating to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on-body devices, sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. for allegedly infringing the patent through the marketing of the GS1 CGM device in Europe. The Local Division The Hague granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a sufficient interest despite a unilateral cease-and-desist declaration, and that the Defendants' GS1 device likely infringed claims 1 and 4 of the patent.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 concerning an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. The court denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC), as claim 1 and its dependent claims extended beyond the disclosure of the original application. Abbott was ordered to bear the defendants' costs, with the value of the dispute set at EUR 4,000,000.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC). Abbott was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, and the value of the dispute was set at EUR 4,000,000.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 2 713 879 relating to an apparatus for an on-body continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor device, sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. for allegedly infringing the patent through the marketing of the GS1 CGM device in Europe. The Local Division The Hague granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a sufficient interest and that the Defendants' unilateral cease-and-desist declaration did not render the application devoid of purpose.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo) v.Plant-e B.V. and Plant-e Knowledge B.V.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo), the defendant in a patent infringement action, applied under Rule 262A RoP for an order protecting confidential information contained in its rejoinder and Exhibits GP36 and GP39, which related to experimental data on its Bioo Panels. Plant-e contested the confidentiality, arguing the panels were publicly sold and the data could be reproduced. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) held that the redacted information qualified as confidential under Article 58 UPCA and R.262A.1 RoP, restricted access to a confidentiality club, and imposed a potential penalty payment of up to EUR 100,000 per breach.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo) v.Plant-e B.V. and Plant-e Knowledge B.V. (Application for Protection of Confidential Information)
Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as 'Bioo'), the defendant in a patent infringement action concerning EP2137782, applied under R.262A RoP for an order protecting certain confidential information contained in its rejoinder and supporting exhibits. The Local Division The Hague held that the redacted experimental data concerning Bioo Panels qualified as confidential information within the meaning of Article 58 UPCA, and restricted access to a defined confidentiality club, with potential penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per breach.
Keestrack N.V. v.Geha Laverman B.V.
Keestrack N.V. filed an infringement action against Geha Laverman B.V. before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning European patent EP3713672. Before any substantive proceedings, Keestrack filed a request to withdraw the action with the defendant's consent. The court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant under Rule 370.9(b) RoP.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The provided document contains no substantive judgment text; it consists solely of an administrative note indicating the document was uploaded for technical (CMS) reasons to close a workflow, accompanied by a digital signature from Margot Elsa Kokke dated December 13, 2024.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2137782. The defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the court had to decide whether to hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly or to bifurcate. Both parties requested a joint hearing, and the court ordered that it would proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Procedural order in infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning European Patent EP4070727. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., as the patent proprietor, sought alignment of the dates for the Statement of Defense, which had diverged for the two defendants due to different service dates. The court ordered both defendants to file their Statement of Defense on 14 March 2024, with the terms for reply and rejoinder adjusted accordingly.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
This is an infringement proceeding before the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP4070727. The court addressed the issue of service of process on Dexcom International Limited, which had failed by registered letter at both addresses provided. Abbott submitted evidence that effective service had been accomplished by an Irish process server on 20 December 2023, rendering the alternative service application moot.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.