Berichtersta
162 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
162 cases indexed | Page 3 of 6
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC appeal case involved ILME GmbH seeking to suspend the main infringement and revocation proceedings before the Local Division Munich while its preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court was being heard on appeal. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing the need for procedural efficiency and timely resolution. This decision reinforces the principle that jurisdictional challenges should be addressed within the UPC framework without unduly delaying substantive litigation.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a procedural motion regarding deadlines in an appeal case involving ILME and Phoenix Contact, concerning patent EP 3 646 825. The court was asked to grant a three-week extension for one party's reply brief. Ultimately, the court granted only a minimal three-day extension, emphasizing the need for efficient proceedings while maintaining procedural balance.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This decision addressed an application for access to court files (Rule 262) within a complex UPC infringement case. The Court acknowledged the general public interest in observing proceedings but prioritized protecting sensitive information and mitigating technical risks associated with the CMS workflow system. Consequently, it granted limited access to redacted versions of documents, setting a precedent for balancing transparency against confidentiality in high-stakes UPC litigation.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.ehemalige Patentinhaber
This UPC appellate decision addresses a complex issue regarding cost allocation in patent litigation where one party initiates an invalidity action and the other subsequently waives their rights to the patent. The court ruled that equitable considerations can override strict procedural requirements concerning the timing of a waiver and revocation request under Art. 105a EPC. This provides significant relief for patentees who may have delayed formalizing their withdrawal due to complex legal circumstances.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an urgent inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. ahead of a main infringement lawsuit concerning its patent on surface treatment processes. The claimant argued that the respondent's specialized sales channels made it nearly impossible to obtain products for testing, thus preventing verification of alleged infringements. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing procedural requirements and setting strict deadlines for filing the main action.
Nichia Corporation v.Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH
This UPC decision confirms the settlement reached between Nichia Corporation and Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH regarding infringement of EP 2 323 178 B1. Although the case was settled, the court provided specific procedural rulings, including setting the value of the infringement claim at EUR 1 million. The ruling also mandated a partial refund of court fees for the claimant, highlighting the procedural benefits available when disputes are resolved amicably.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
In this UPC case involving packaging technology, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued an order setting out the procedural path forward for both infringement and revocation claims. The court decided to combine the two actions into a single proceeding, citing efficiency and the benefit of a unified interpretation by the same judicial panel. This decision streamlines complex patent litigation, allowing claimants and defendants to address validity and infringement simultaneously.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses procedural motions regarding the exchange of further written pleadings in a patent infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 755 901 B1. The court ruled against both the claimant (Hartmann Packaging A/S) and the respondents (Omni-Pac GmbH). The ruling underscores strict adherence to the UPC's procedural timetable, requiring parties to utilize their allotted submissions or formally request additional pleadings under R. 36 VerfO with strong justification.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court rejected a request by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. to introduce evidence regarding a Chinese patent's invalidation decision into the UPC proceedings. The court found that the late submission and failure to provide the document in German prejudiced the preparation for the upcoming oral hearing. This case highlights the strict procedural requirements of the UPC, emphasizing timely submissions and adherence to the official language of the proceedings.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
In a procedural ruling within the UPC Local Division, the court addressed Chainzone Technology's request for access to case files related to EP2643717. Despite initial delays and considerations regarding ongoing proceedings, the court ultimately granted the requested file access. This decision underscores the importance of transparency in UPC proceedings, even when preliminary measures like evidence preservation are involved.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation successfully secured a finding of infringement against OPPO entities regarding its patent covering radio communication devices essential for the 4G standard. While the court granted an injunction, it made enforcement conditional on Panasonic providing a €10 million security deposit to the defendants. Crucially, both the revocation and FRAND counterclaims brought by OPPO were dismissed, strengthening Panasonic's position in this complex SEP dispute.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation successfully secured a finding of infringement against OPPO entities regarding its patent covering radio communication devices essential for the 4G standard. The court granted an injunction but made it conditional on Panasonic providing a €10 million security deposit, a common feature in complex SEP disputes within the UPC. Crucially, both the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and their FRAND counterclaims were dismissed by the Mannheim Local Court.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision from the Mannheim Local Court confirms the withdrawal of an infringement suit brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH. The case, which involved EP 2 568 724, was settled amicably between the parties after a final judgment had already been issued. The court formally closed the proceedings, confirming that each party would cover its own legal expenses.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
In this UPC case, Rematec GmbH & Co KG sued Europe Forestry B.V. for infringing its patent covering a grinding mill used for crushing wood chips. The court ultimately declared the European Patent EP 2 548 648 fully invalid across several member states. This decision highlights the rigorous scrutiny applied by the UPC regarding inventive step, particularly when features are found to be obvious in light of existing technical literature.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural issues concerning cost determination following a provisional measures case. The court ruled that deadlines for filing costs claims are tied to substantive decisions, not interim orders. Crucially, it affirmed that the principle allowing successful parties to claim legal costs (EPC Art. 69) applies even when no full infringement or validity proceedings have been initiated, provided the initial action was unsuccessful.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional question: whether the Unified Patent Court can hear an independent claim for damages following a successful national infringement judgment. The court affirmed that since the damage claim is rooted in patent infringement, it falls under the scope of Article 32(1)(a) EPC. This ruling provides significant clarity and predictability for patentees seeking to enforce their rights across the UPC system.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH initiated proceedings against Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH regarding infringement of its patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which covers specialized avalanche rescue transceivers (LVS). The Düsseldorf Local Chamber issued a detailed decision addressing both the infringement claims and the counterclaim for revocation. Key rulings clarified principles of indirect infringement when user activation is required and established stringent criteria for implementing product destruction or recall measures to ensure permanent cessation of infringement.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision involves a complex dispute over an avalanche rescue device (LVS) protected by EP 3 466 498 B1. The claimant sued the defendants for infringement while simultaneously challenging the patent's validity in Switzerland. The court issued detailed injunctions, establishing specific legal principles regarding indirect infringement when user activation is required and setting high standards for market removal measures like destruction. This case highlights the UPC's ability to handle combined actions of infringement and revocation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a cost determination proceeding initiated by Edwards Lifesciences against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. While the court found that the respondents were liable for the procedural costs totaling EUR 244,000 (including amounts agreed upon in earlier proceedings), it definitively rejected the claimant's request to have these costs paid with interest. The ruling clarifies a critical distinction within UPC procedure: while damages claims may include compensation for time value of money, standard cost reimbursement does not automatically carry an interest component unless explicitly provided by law.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an appeal. DISH and Sling sought full reimbursement due to alleged errors in procedural instructions, but the Court ultimately granted only partial relief. The ruling confirms that even when appealing, parties are entitled to 60% fee reimbursement upon withdrawal, provided they meet the formal requirements under the Rules of Procedure.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd has initiated an infringement lawsuit against Netgear International Limited and its affiliates concerning European Patent EP 3 678 321. Crucially, the court has consolidated this infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation, meaning both sides will argue simultaneously on whether the patent is valid and if it is being infringed. This procedural consolidation sets the stage for a comprehensive trial in Munich.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, the Rapporteur addressed a motion by Xiaomi entities seeking to summarily dismiss the claimant's request for amending the patent claims. The court emphasized the principle of procedural economy, holding that complex substantive issues concerning the validity and scope of patent amendments should not be decided prematurely. Instead, these matters are reserved for the main proceedings, ensuring a comprehensive review by the full judicial panel.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the timing of patent amendments during infringement proceedings. The court examined an application by President and Fellows of Harvard College to amend its patent based on developments in parallel EPO opposition proceedings. While the initial amendment request was rejected, the court allowed an appeal because the question of when subsequent amendments can be filed under Rule 30.2 VerfO has broad significance for UPC practice. This case highlights the strict procedural requirements governing changes to patent claims mid-litigation.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH, and Belkin Limited
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 2 867 997 B1), Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a disclosure order against Belkin International and its subsidiaries. After the defendants failed to provide complete, organized information in an electronic format as required by the initial judgment, the court imposed a substantial Zwangsgeld (coercive fine). The ruling serves as a strong warning that non-compliance with judicial orders for evidence or information can lead to significant financial penalties under UPC rules.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This UPC decision is a procedural ruling concerning the correct service date of infringement claims filed against a Swiss defendant. The court clarified that because Switzerland falls outside the EU, standard fictional rules for deemed service do not apply, meaning the actual delivery date must be recognized. This highlights the importance of correctly applying jurisdictional and procedural rules when serving documents across international borders in UPC proceedings.
NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the critical interplay between preliminary injunctions, their subsequent revocation, and the enforceability of associated penalty orders (Zwangsgelder). The court established that because initial injunctions are generally retroactive, overturning them eliminates the legal foundation for any coercive fine order. This ruling provides significant clarity on risk management for patentees relying on provisional measures in UPC proceedings.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
In a significant decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Dyson's request for an injunction against SharkNinja concerning EP 2 043 492. The court found that the probability of infringement was not overwhelmingly high, particularly regarding the cyclonic separating apparatus feature (1.3). This ruling underscores the high evidentiary threshold required to obtain provisional relief in UPC proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued OPPO group companies for infringing its patent EP 2 568 724, which relates to radio communication devices essential for the 4G standard. The case also involved counterclaims regarding FRAND licensing and patent revocation. While the court found infringement and awarded preliminary damages of €250,000, it ultimately dismissed the main infringement lawsuit. This decision highlights the complex interplay between finding technical infringement and the ultimate scope of relief granted in UPC proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a motion filed by the defendants (OROPE and OPPO) seeking to suspend the proceedings related to EP 2 568 724 and postpone the announcement date. The court rejected these requests, emphasizing that procedural fairness requires both parties to actively participate in the process. The ruling underscores that unilateral attempts to delay or halt a case without mutual agreement or compelling justification will be unsuccessful.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought permission to introduce new evidence regarding the respondent's offering of a 'Barryvox S' device with voice control. The court ultimately rejected this request. While existing interim measures protect against infringement by the 'Barryvox S2', the introduction of the 'Barryvox S' requires careful procedural handling, balancing the claimant's need for information against the respondents' right to be heard within the limited time frame.
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.