Berichtersta
162 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
162 cases indexed | Page 2 of 6
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a motion for disclosure of license agreements in an ongoing infringement and FRAND dispute between Huawei and MediaTek. The court partially granted the respondent's request, compelling the claimant (Huawei) to submit specific relevant licensing contracts. However, the court rejected broader demands for disclosing all related contractual amendments and supplementary agreements. This ruling underscores the Court's careful balancing act between ensuring full transparency in SEP disputes and protecting confidential business information.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handels GmbH (and Johann Windhager, Stefan Windhager)
This UPC decision addresses a complex infringement case involving interlocking metal strips used for garden edging. The court issued significant legal guidance, establishing that merely offering or supplying components designed to assemble easily constitutes direct patent infringement. While the claimant secured an injunction and damages against the main defendant, the overall infringement claim was partially dismissed, highlighting the nuanced application of component supply rules in UPC litigation.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
In this UPC case concerning an infringement action involving EP 1 998 686 B2, the court addressed a motion regarding the protection of confidential information. The Lokalkammer Düsseldorf granted the request to classify specific data as trade secrets under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262A VerfO. Crucially, the court ruled that the claimant's CEO must be granted access to this sensitive information, despite objections from the defendants who feared competitive disadvantage.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the costs allocation in a provisional measures proceeding concerning EP 4 001 835. The core dispute involved whether the application was moot and who should bear the legal costs, particularly regarding Respondent No. 2 (Blankenhorn GmbH). Although the claimant sought to impose costs on Respondent No. 2 due to lack of formal warning, the court found that since both parties agreed the matter was settled, the proceedings were terminated. The court ultimately upheld the imposition of costs on Respondent No. 2 based on principles of equity.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
In this UPC case involving a SEP dispute over Android technology, the respondent sought an extension of the reply period citing complex technical and FRAND defense requirements. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that the existing procedural deadlines are already designed to accommodate the complexities of international patent litigation. This decision reinforces the principle that parties must manage their timelines effectively within the UPC's structured framework.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This UPC decision is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement and revocation action concerning egg packaging (EP 2 755 901 B1). The court has meticulously defined the technical scope of the dispute for the upcoming oral hearing. Key focus areas include the interpretation of structural elements, such as the retainment projection and nose, and the specific manufacturing method involving balancing deformations during suction molding. This order sets a clear roadmap for both parties to prepare their arguments.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH; expert e-Commerce GmbH
This decision from the UPC Board of Appeal addresses procedural matters following an oral hearing in a complex infringement and revocation case. The claimant, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., attempted to submit additional written arguments after the proceedings concluded. The Court firmly ruled that once the oral phase is complete, the matter is ready for judgment, and further submissions are generally inadmissible unless explicitly permitted by the court under strict rules.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for provisional measures related to EP 1 998 686 B1. Although the core issue is infringement, the respondents raised challenges regarding the patent's validity. The court ruled that given these dual issues—infringement and invalidity—it was appropriate to enhance the judicial panel by appointing an additional technically qualified judge. This proactive step ensures early expert involvement in complex medical technology cases.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
In this provisional measures case, Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG sought urgent relief against BAG Diagnostics GmbH concerning EP 3 548 898 B1. Although the core infringement dispute remains pending, the court recognized that the respondent was simultaneously challenging the patent's validity. Consequently, the Düsseldorf Local Division proactively ordered the assignment of an additional technically qualified judge to ensure expert handling of the complex technical and legal issues from the outset.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
In this procedural order, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf addressed the complex interplay between an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning several coffee system patents. The court decided to handle both claims jointly under Article 33(3)(a) EPC, streamlining the proceedings. This early decision was deemed efficient given the moderate technical complexity of the subject matter.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for confidentiality regarding technical data and measurement reports in an infringement case involving traffic signaling systems. The court confirmed that certain non-obvious product properties qualify as trade secrets under Article 58 EPC, provided they are kept confidential. While the court granted protection to specific documents submitted by Strabag, it rejected broader requests from both Swarco (the claimant) and Chainzone (the assisting party), setting clear boundaries on information disclosure in UPC proceedings.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC provisional measures case, Aesculap AG sought to enforce a prior disclosure order against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding specific surgical instruments. The court ruled that while the underlying obligation was already in place, it granted the request for coercive fines (Zwangsgeld). This decision is significant as it provides strong enforcement teeth to discovery and information-gathering orders within the UPC framework, ensuring patentees can effectively compel disclosure from alleged infringers.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company
In this procedural case concerning an Anti-anti-suit Injunction (AASI), the court addressed the defendants' refusal to properly acknowledge service. The claimant argued that the defendants were deliberately obstructing the legal process by limiting their representation and refusing formal acknowledgment of the AASI. The Mannheim Local Chamber ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that such procedural tactics are invalid and constitute a breach of professional conduct. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring proper due process and compliance with its orders within the UPC framework.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG initiated proceedings against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) concerning EP 2 892 442 B1, a patent related to surgical torque-transmitting instruments. The Düsseldorf Local Court issued an order setting the technical scope of Claim 1 for the upcoming oral hearing on July 1, 2025. This procedural step is crucial as it defines the precise features that will be debated regarding potential infringement or validity in this UPC case.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC appellate case involved ILME appealing a rejection of its opposition against an infringement suit brought by PHOENIX regarding EP 3 602 692. However, before the appeal could be decided on merits, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to the withdrawal and termination of the original infringement proceedings. The UPC Appeals Board subsequently dismissed ILME's appeal under Rule 360 because the underlying dispute had become moot.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge ('Gegenvorstellung') brought by Knaus Tabbert against the Appeal Court's rejection of its request for interim relief. The court ruled that such a counter-submission is inadmissible if it only disputes the reasoning of the rejecting order, not the merits itself. This ruling reinforces strict procedural boundaries within the UPC system regarding appeals and motions for provisional measures.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC case, Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe). The core dispute revolved around procedural matters: specifically, whether the respondent could receive simultaneous interpretation and participate via video conference during the oral hearing. The court partially granted the request, allowing the respondent to hire an interpreter at their own expense, but rejected the formal application for state-funded interpretation and denied the video conferencing option due to insufficient justification.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
This Mannheim Local Court decision addressed a complex UPC case involving DISH Technologies and Sling TV against several defendants regarding EP 2 479 680, which covers rate-adaptive streaming methods. The ruling provided crucial guidance on patent law principles, specifically defining the limits of 'technical-functional equivalence' in infringement analysis. It also clarified that isolated challenges to dependent claims are generally insufficient for legal protection without challenging the independent claim.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd.
Versah LLC initiated an infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 402 420 B1. However, before the written proceedings concluded, Versah reached an out-of-court settlement with one of the defendants (Respondent 2). The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the claimant's request for partial withdrawal against this specific defendant and terminated those proceedings. This case highlights how private settlements can directly impact the trajectory and scope of UPC litigation.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a penalty payment case stemming from an initial disclosure order in an infringement action involving Philips and Belkin regarding patent EP 2 867 997. The court confirmed the validity of imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance, even if compliance is eventually achieved late. Crucially, it reinforced the obligation to disclose manufacturer prices under Art. 67 EPC, providing clear guidance on procedural enforcement and disclosure requirements in UPC litigation.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision concerns an application by Chainzone Technology to suspend the effect of a judgment against it, which had found it liable for patent infringement. The appeal was filed following a local court ruling that largely favored Swarco, the patent holder. The Board ultimately rejected Chainzone's request for suspension, citing insufficient substantiation in its legal arguments regarding the interpretation of the patent claim.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses an application for interim relief concerning patent infringement. The court ruled that the requirement for a security deposit to ensure enforcement is not automatic and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the lower court. The ruling emphasizes that parties should raise all relevant facts, including financial vulnerabilities, during the initial proceedings rather than relying solely on them in an appeal.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC provisional measures case, Aesculap AG sought interim relief against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding EP 2 892 442 B1. Although the core dispute is ongoing, the respondent challenged the patent's validity (novelty and inventive step). The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled that given the technical complexity and the challenge to validity, it was necessary to appoint an additional technically qualified judge to assist the panel early in the proceedings.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a motion by Xiaomi defendants seeking to exclude arguments made by Nera Innovations Ltd. regarding the patentability of specific dependent claims (Hilfsanträge). The court found that the claimant had sufficiently disclosed the basis for these combined claims in earlier filings and that subsequent elaborations were permissible under procedural rules. This decision reinforces the principle of procedural economy, allowing parties to build upon existing arguments without being strictly limited by initial filing requirements.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Henle Baumaschinentechnik GmbH
In a case involving infringement and revocation of EP 3 770 330 B1, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted an extension of deadlines for the claimant. The court recognized that the late provision of evidence by the defendant constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the procedural relief. This decision underscores the UPC's willingness to manage complex litigation timelines when procedural fairness is at stake.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for protection of trade secrets between CUP&CINO and ALPINA Coffee Systems. The court successfully classified specific financial data submitted by the respondent as confidential business information under Article 58 EPC. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting sensitive commercial data during litigation, ensuring that proprietary information remains restricted to authorized parties.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In a procedural ruling concerning cost assessment within an ongoing UPC action, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted the claimant, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH, protection for its trade secrets. The court found that information regarding billed work and hourly rates constituted confidential business information. This decision reinforces the ability of parties to safeguard sensitive commercial data during litigation under the UPC framework.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a costs determination application following an infringement and revocation proceedings involving Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH and Mammut Sports Group. The court analyzed the reasonableness of the respondent's cost claims, specifically scrutinizing how they calculated the relevant claim value for fee assessment. Ultimately, the court partially granted the claimant's request, limiting the recoverable costs to 4,866.11 EUR due to methodological errors in the respondents' calculation.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a complex costs determination application arising from an infringement and revocation action concerning avalanche search devices. The court provided crucial guidance on the separability of costs, confirming that expenses incurred during preliminary injunction proceedings are distinct and separately reimbursable, even if they precede the main infringement suit. This ruling clarifies how cost ceilings apply across different procedural stages within the UPC framework, offering significant clarity for practitioners managing multi-stage litigation.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a costs determination application filed by the defendants following a complex infringement and revocation proceeding. Although the initial lawsuit resulted in the patent being declared invalid in certain territories, the defendants subsequently sought to recover substantial legal costs from the claimant. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected this claim, finding that the application was submitted too late according to the strict one-month deadline set out in the Rules of Procedure.
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.