Pending
at The Hague (NL) Local Division
17 pending decisions from The Hague (NL) Local Division.
Pending Decisions
17 cases | Page 1 of 1
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., Pfizer Export B.V., Pfizer B.V., and associated entities (collectively PBNT)
This procedural order in the GSK v. Pfizer case focused on managing the complexity and volume of submissions within the UPC proceedings. The defendants requested limitations on Auxiliary Requests (ARs) and an extension for their rejoinder, citing excessive length and number of ARs from the claimant. The court acknowledged the high volume but did not limit the ARs; instead, it required GSK to provide a detailed tabular overview of its claims to improve judicial clarity. This ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness with the need for expeditious case management.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
In a procedural order, the UPC CFI addressed complex applications regarding claim amendments and late-filed evidence in the GSK v Moderna dispute over vaccine patents. The court granted GSK's request to amend its claims to cover new product variants (mNEXSPIKE), while simultaneously dismissing Moderna’s objections concerning the timeliness of GSK's submissions. This decision affirms the claimant's right to adapt its case and respond fully to the defendant's arguments, setting a clear procedural path for the ongoing infringement and validity proceedings.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Et al.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in The Hague addressed a dispute over the number of conditional amendments (Auxiliary Requests or ARs) filed by the claimant Maxell against Samsung. Samsung argued that 44 ARs were excessive and requested an extension to respond. The Court rejected both arguments, finding that the complexity was justified by the extensive invalidity attacks raised by Samsung and that the ARs effectively covered a limited set of core features. This ruling confirms the court's discretion in managing complex cases while maintaining procedural efficiency.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement and revocation case involving GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and Moderna et al., the UPC Court of First Instance decided to split the combined counterclaim for revocation. The court found that combining the two counterclaims, one for each patent (EP4066856 and EP4226941), was procedurally impractical given the different opposition stages before the EPO. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation to ensure procedural fairness and proper fee assessment.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al.
This procedural order in the UPC case between Adeia Guides Inc. and The Walt Disney Company addresses key logistical and financial aspects of a complex infringement and revocation dispute. The Court successfully set the monetary value of the claims at €12 million, streamlining the financial scope for both parties. Additionally, the court granted confidentiality measures requested by Disney, allowing the litigation to proceed under agreed-upon privacy terms.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
This procedural decision in UPC case UPC_CFI_479/2025 confirms the readiness for enforcement following a previous provisional measures ruling. The claimants, Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V., have secured the necessary security deposits to proceed with enforcing injunctions, information orders, penalty sums, and costs against multiple defendants. The court authorized electronic service of the final order, moving the case closer to a definitive enforcement phase.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney Company Limited
In a procedural order concerning an infringement claim, Adeia Guides Inc. successfully petitioned the UPC Court of First Instance for a deadline extension. The request was made due to late-filed exhibits in the ongoing litigation against various Disney entities. This ruling ensures that both parties have adequate time to respond to complex legal filings in this high-stakes patent dispute.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against Moderna addressed extensive jurisdictional challenges raised by the large group of Moderna entities. Moderna argued that several subsidiaries lacked sufficient domicile or connection to the UPC territory for the court to exercise jurisdiction. The Court rejected these objections, confirming its competence based on established connectivity principles (e.g., co-defendants in the same country). This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings concerning Spikevax.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
HL Display AB initiated an infringement action against Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. concerning patent EP2432351. This procedural order sets the stage for the main trial by rescheduling the oral hearing to August 22, 2025, and formally establishing the financial value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both sides. The parties agreed on all procedural points, including the appointment of a technical judge.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V.; Troy Chemie GmbH; Azelis Group N.V.; Azelis SA; Azelis Netherlands B.V.; Azelis Benelux
In a recent procedural order, the UPC granted a stay to an infringement action involving AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC and several defendants including Troy Chemical Company B.V. The parties mutually requested the pause of proceedings until February 13, 2026. This decision highlights the court's flexibility in managing complex litigation timelines, allowing both claimant and defendant time to prepare or resolve underlying issues before proceeding with the infringement claims.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc.
In a complex biotech patent dispute involving Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and numerous Moderna entities, the UPC issued a procedural order in June 2025. The defendants sought to challenge prior case management orders and preliminary objections raised by the claimants across two infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025). The court granted the claimants a week to respond, indicating that the core substantive issues remain pending while procedural challenges are addressed.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna, Inc.
In a procedural order concerning two infringement actions, the UPC Local Division dismissed most preliminary objections raised by Moderna against Genevant Sciences. Moderna had challenged the court's jurisdiction and competence for various defendants and patents. The Court ruled that the patent was validly opted-out and withdrawn, thereby confirming the UPC's authority to hear the case. While some issues regarding long-arm jurisdiction remain pending in the main proceedings, the path is cleared for the infringement claims to move forward.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (unnamed)
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of service of process in a UPC infringement action. The court ruled that despite initial difficulties and subsequent refusal by the Defendant to accept documents, Amycel's alternative methods of delivery qualified as 'good service.' This ruling establishes a clear precedent for how parties can successfully effect service when standard procedures fail, provided efficiency and fairness are maintained.
Winnow 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.
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.