Berichtersta
162 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
162 cases indexed | Page 5 of 6
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding service of process on non-EU defendants, specifically those based in China and Hong Kong. Panasonic challenged the court's requirement for prior Hague Convention service attempts before allowing service via an EU group company (Xiaomi DE). The Board upheld the lower court's stance, emphasizing that corporate structure alone does not satisfy the requirements for valid cross-border service to non-EU jurisdictions. This ruling reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC cases involving international defendants, particularly when attempting to leverage intra-group relationships for jurisdictional purposes.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG / Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In this provisional measures case, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought the release of a 500,000 EUR cash deposit previously provided to secure an ex-parte injunction. The claimant successfully argued that she had replaced the cash deposit with a bank guarantee, demonstrating a legitimate interest in exchanging the security due to practical constraints. The court ruled in favor of Ortovox, ordering the release of the funds, thereby establishing clear guidelines on the flexibility of security requirements within UPC proceedings.
CEAD B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning the confidentiality of litigation costs in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_367/2023). The parties sought to restrict access to detailed cost breakdowns, which included individually negotiated attorney fees. The Court ultimately granted public confidentiality for these documents, finding that the private interest in protecting fee arrangements outweighed the general public's need for such granular financial detail. This ruling reinforces the protection of sensitive commercial information within UPC proceedings.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.VusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA)
This UPC Appeals Board decision clarifies the procedural rules governing cost determination in complex litigation. The court ruled that even when a party seeks to recover costs related to the appeals process itself, the application must ultimately be filed with and decided by the Court of First Instance. This ruling reinforces the structured nature of the UPC's procedure, ensuring that all final cost determinations follow the established framework (R. 150 ff. VerfO). Practitioners should note this when planning their costs recovery strategy in multi-stage UPC proceedings.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
In a case concerning patent infringement related to extrusion technology, KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH successfully withdrew its lawsuit against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG after reaching an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Local Division accepted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings. Crucially, the court ruled that because the litigation was not yet fully concluded—due to pending issues like expert reports and parallel EPO appeal decisions—the claimant was entitled to a partial refund of their court fees.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG et al. v.Ona Patents SL
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Apple seeking to accelerate the appeal process and reduce the deadline for Ona's reply. The court ultimately denied the request, holding that while acceleration was possible, Apple failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to override Ona's right to a fair trial. This case underscores the judiciary's careful balancing act between party efficiency demands and fundamental procedural fairness within the UPC framework.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the claimant (KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH) successfully withdrew its action against the respondent (TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG). The court accepted the withdrawal because both parties had reached an out-of-court settlement and the respondent consented to the claim's termination. Crucially, the court ruled that since the oral proceedings were not yet finalized—due to pending issues like expert reports or EPO appeal outcomes—the claimant was entitled to a partial refund of 20% of the court fees.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a procedural dispute regarding the submission of pleadings in an infringement case. The respondents sought extensions for their reply and rejoinder, citing redacted documents from the claimant's initial filing. However, the court rejected these requests, establishing a strict rule that placeholders via redactions are procedurally unacceptable. This ruling emphasizes the importance of full transparency and timely disclosure of all arguments to ensure a fair defense process in UPC litigation.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
In this UPC case concerning infringement of EP4074373, the Local Division decided to refer the revocation counterclaim and the claimant's request for patent amendment to the Central Division in Paris. This decision was based on procedural efficiency, as the core arguments against the patent were already being litigated in a prior central action initiated by one of the defendants. The court ruled that maintaining parallel proceedings would violate the principle of process economy.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a request for trade secret protection (R. 262A VerfO) in connection with patent litigation involving Panasonic and OPPO/OROPE. The core dispute centered on the scope of confidentiality, specifically regarding licensing agreements and negotiations. While the court upheld some level of protection for sensitive information, it simultaneously limited access rights requested by the defendants to ensure procedural fairness across parallel UPC and national proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Court in Mannheim extended the deadlines for OROPE Germany GmbH to submit its pleadings regarding the FRAND aspect of the dispute. The extension was granted following a decision on the trade secret regime and aims to allow both parties sufficient time to address the complex licensing terms. This highlights the court's focus on ensuring procedural fairness while managing the complexity inherent in FRAND disputes.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a motion for protective measures concerning confidential information related to patent licensing and FRAND negotiations in the case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court carefully balanced the claimant's need for secrecy regarding sensitive commercial data against the respondents' demands for broader access during litigation. Ultimately, the protection was partially granted, establishing strict rules on who can view the documents and for what purpose.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A VerfO in an infringement case involving OPPO and Panasonic. The court confirmed that the information was indeed confidential but modified the scope of access and rejected the demand for document destruction post-trial. This ruling provides clarity on balancing the need for secrecy with the practical requirements of litigation, particularly regarding permissible access by legal representatives.
AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This UPC decision addressed a request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A) in an ongoing infringement case involving video streaming technology. The court ruled that while the initial broad application of secrecy was rejected, specific access restrictions were granted to protect sensitive information related to the patented embodiments and litigation strategies. This ruling highlights the delicate balance courts must strike between maintaining trade secret integrity and ensuring fair legal proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision is a procedural order in an infringement case involving Panasonic against OPPO and OROPE concerning an LTE patent (EP 2 568 724). The court highlighted the need for claimants to provide detailed technical interpretations of complex claims early in the proceedings. Crucially, the judge raised several doubts regarding the scope and necessity of the FRAND rate determination counterclaims filed by the respondents, signaling potential procedural hurdles for these types of ancillary requests.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a request for protective measures concerning confidential business information submitted by Tesla entities. The court found that specific operational and financial data provided by the defendants—such as average selling prices and vehicle allocation details—were genuinely sensitive and not publicly available. This decision reinforces the importance of Rule 262A EPG VerfO, providing a crucial mechanism for parties to safeguard proprietary information during complex patent litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a request for protective measures concerning confidential business information submitted by Tesla entities in relation to an ongoing patent dispute involving Avago Technologies. The court found that specific operational and financial data provided by Tesla—such as average selling prices and internal inventory numbers—were genuinely non-public and required protection under Rule 262A EPG VerfO. This decision is significant for practitioners, reinforcing the UPC's commitment to balancing transparency with the need to protect sensitive trade secrets during litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion regarding the production of corporate documents in an infringement case involving Avago Technologies and Tesla. The respondents sought internal Board of Directors resolutions to challenge the claimant's legal standing (active legitimation) concerning patent ownership and assignment validity. The court partially granted this request, compelling the claimant to produce specific transfer authorization documents necessary for the respondent to properly defend their position under Rule 190.1.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co, Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural issue of partially withdrawing an appeal against multiple defendants in a patent infringement case. Nera Innovations sought to withdraw its appeal specifically against two EU-based Xiaomi entities (NL and DE), arguing they lacked legitimate interest due to prior service of process. The court rejected this request, emphasizing that even if some parties are not directly affected by the procedural change, their right to due process must be protected. This ruling reinforces the importance of considering all stakeholders' interests when managing complex multi-defendant litigation in the UPC.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning SEP EP 3096315, the court addressed a request by the defendants for extensive document disclosure related to the claimant's licensing history. The court ultimately rejected most of these requests, finding them too vague or superseded by the parties' own actions. This ruling reinforces the principle that while transparency is important in FRAND negotiations, broad demands for historical portfolio data are not automatically granted and must be narrowly tailored.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.***
This UPC decision addressed a revocation action concerning EP 3 170 639 B1, which ultimately became moot when the patent holder voluntarily withdrew the patent. The court analyzed the equitable distribution of costs, noting that it is generally unfair to charge costs to a patent owner who withdraws immediately upon seeing relevant prior art presented in the lawsuit. Despite this finding regarding equity, the claimant was ordered to bear the procedural costs.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finland Oy, HP Italy S.r.l., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD
Dolby International AB initiated infringement proceedings against various HP entities regarding the European patent EP 3 490 258 B1, which covers HEVC video decoding technology. During the litigation, Dolby sought to restrict its claims to exclude products utilizing NVIDIA graphics cards. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted this request, formally narrowing the scope of the lawsuit. This decision is significant as it demonstrates how claimants can strategically refine their infringement allegations within the UPC framework.
VusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
VusionGroup SA appealed a decision rejecting its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology regarding EP 3883277, which covers electronic price labels. The UPC Board of Appeal found that the products manufactured by Hanshow did not meet all the technical requirements defined in the patent claims. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the initial rejection and holding VusionGroup liable for legal costs.
CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
In this procedural case, CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. sought simultaneous interpretation for their representatives during revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 681 034 B1. Although the court rejected the broad request for language changes, it granted a specific allowance for Dr. Wim Maas to be interpreted into German at his own cost. This decision highlights the UPC's balance between maintaining procedural integrity in the language of grant and ensuring effective participation for all parties.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling concerning the infringement of EP3611989, Huawei sought court orders to introduce and protect a confidential license agreement with Amazon. The Local Chamber confirmed these provisional measures, granting strict secrecy protection for the document. Crucially, the court also allowed the use of this sensitive licensing information in related split proceedings, balancing commercial needs with IP confidentiality.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this UPC case concerning nucleic acid detection technology, 10x Genomics sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an injunction, confirming the validity and scope of EP 2 697 391 B1. However, the court imposed strict conditions for enforcement, requiring 10x Genomics to post a substantial security deposit of EUR 2 million. This decision highlights the high threshold required for obtaining provisional relief in UPC infringement cases.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order in the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) addresses a request by both parties to change the language of the ongoing infringement case. The claimant, 10x Genomics, Inc., initiated proceedings against Curio Bioscience Inc. regarding EP 2 697 391 B1. Both parties mutually agreed to switch the procedural language from German to English, which the court subsequently approved.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the disclosure of a confidential Qualcomm licensing agreement relevant to an ongoing Wi-Fi infringement case. Despite the court dismissing both sides' requests for mandatory disclosure, it issued comprehensive protective orders. These rulings emphasize the importance of balancing litigation needs with the protection of trade secrets in high-tech patent disputes.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 697 391, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Curio Bioscience's request to change the court language from German to English. The decision emphasized that fairness is paramount when considering such changes, particularly weighing the position of the defendant (10x Genomics). This case highlights the practical application of procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust proceedings based on linguistic and operational needs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In this UPC case, Avago Technologies sued Tesla entities for infringement of EP1838002. Concurrently, the defendants filed counterclaims seeking revocation of the patent. The court issued an order consolidating all claims—the main action and both counterclaims—to be heard together before the Munich Local Division. This procedural step streamlines the litigation process by addressing infringement and validity simultaneously.
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.