Camille Ligni
29 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
29 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda.
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC confirmed its exclusive jurisdiction over a pharmaceutical patent infringement case involving nintedanib. The Defendant attempted to challenge the Court's competence by arguing that the dispute was administrative, stemming from a national health authority's communication. However, the UPC rejected this objection, clarifying that the core issue is a private enforcement action based on the threat of infringement, not an administrative review. This decision allows the case to proceed to the substantive merits phase.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
In a provisional measures case concerning CGM technology, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought relief against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the patent EP3988471. While the Court ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, it issued a significant ruling on costs. The Court found that despite the dismissal, Abbott must pay an interim award of EUR 400,000 to the Defendants to cover their legal expenses. This decision highlights the UPC's strict approach to cost allocation in preliminary proceedings, emphasizing the principle of proper and fair administration of justice even when the main application fails.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the alleged infringement of its CGM sensor assembly patent (EP4344633). The UPC Local Division granted a significant injunction, ordering the defendants to cease certain activities and provide detailed information on their product's origin and distribution channels within the UPC territory. While the Court did not rule definitively on the merits of infringement, this order provides Abbott with immediate leverage by restricting market access for the accused products.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA; Sophia Genetics SAS; Sophia Genetics SRL; Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. filed an application for provisional measures against the various Sophia Genetics entities concerning four European patents (EP 3766986 et al.). Since the defendants failed to provide legal representation promptly, the UPC Court of First Instance issued a procedural order setting the date for an oral hearing on December 12, 2025. This decision highlights the UPC's commitment to rapid case management in urgent provisional measures proceedings.
Merz Therapeutics GmbH v.Viatris Santé
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures (UPC_CFI_697/2025), the Court addressed the disparity in the length of written submissions between Merz Therapeutics and Viatris Santé. Recognizing that the extensive 473-page objection filed by Viatris was disproportionate to the summary nature of the proceedings, the Judge Rapporteur intervened. The Court imposed strict page limits—70 pages for Viatris's summary objection and 40 pages for Merz's reply—to ensure procedural economy while maintaining fairness.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI L.P, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
This procedural order in the UPC case involving KEEEX SAS against major tech players like Adobe and OpenAI addresses critical timing issues. The court aligned all defendants' deadlines to ensure fair administration of justice, recognizing the complexity and high stakes of the infringement action. Furthermore, it granted an exceptional four-week extension for filing defenses, allowing parties adequate time to address the extensive claims and technical details.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This UPC decision addresses procedural matters in a complex patent dispute involving TIRU and MAGUIN regarding the waste incineration process EP3178578. The Panel successfully ordered the joinder of two parallel infringement actions concerning the same furnace product to streamline proceedings. Crucially, while referring revocation counterclaims to the Central Division, the court decided not to grant a stay on the main infringement case, allowing it to proceed under specific conditions.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This procedural order addressed complex issues arising from parallel litigation involving infringement and revocation of EP3178578. The UPC Local Division decided to join two related infringement actions (TIRU v. VALINEA ENERGIE and TIRU v. MAGUIN) for efficient case management, citing the principle of good administration of justice. Crucially, while counterclaims seeking patent revocation were correctly referred to the Central Division, the court denied the request to stay the ongoing infringement proceedings.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
This procedural order in the Paris Local Division addressed Gisela Mayer's request for N.J Diffusion to provide a €50,000 guarantee due to N.J Diffusion's insolvency proceedings. The Panel ultimately dismissed this guarantee request, citing French collective procedure law which prioritizes the principle of equality among creditors. Crucially, the underlying infringement action was confirmed to continue despite the debtor's financial difficulties.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA
Boehringer Ingelheim sought a preliminary injunction at the UPC against Zentiva Portugal regarding the generic version of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Boehringer alleged imminent infringement, but the Court ultimately rejected the application for provisional measures. However, in a notable cost allocation decision, the Court ordered Boehringer to pay the interim legal costs incurred by Zentiva, setting a precedent on how costs are determined even when the main relief is denied.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
In a significant decision for the LED industry, the UPC Local Division of Paris found Laser Components SAS liable for infringing Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s patent EP3404726. The court granted a permanent injunction against the sale and use of the infringing UVC LED chips across France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the respondent was ordered to provide extensive sales and distribution data, allowing the claimant to proceed with calculating full damages.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
This UPC decision addressed a third party's request for access to the file in an ongoing infringement and revocation case concerning printer cartridge patents (EP2089230 and EP1737669). LIFE 365 S.R.L. sought full disclosure, arguing that the technical arguments from the UPC proceedings were relevant to its parallel litigation in Italy. The court ultimately granted limited access to key pleadings but denied broader access, emphasizing that only documents directly necessary for the Italian dispute would be shared.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P (Demandeur) and LAMA France (Défendeur)
This UPC procedural decision addressed a third party's request for access to the case file (UPC_CFI_358/2023). LIFE 365, an Italian company involved in the printer cartridge market, sought full access to documents related to the infringement and revocation proceedings between HPDC and LAMA France. The court balanced the applicant's legitimate interest—driven by ongoing national litigation and high costs—against the need to protect confidentiality and maintain procedural integrity. Ultimately, limited access was granted, restricting disclosure only to specific pleadings relevant to the patent validity challenge.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This UPC decision addressed a challenge to ex parte evidence preservation orders granted by the Paris Local Division. TIRU sought seizure and site inspections against MAGUIN regarding alleged infringement of its waste incineration patent (EP3178578). MAGUIN challenged these measures, arguing lack of urgency and bad faith on TIRU's part. The court ultimately rejected MAGUIN’s request, affirming that the initial urgent measures were justified given the competitive market environment.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This UPC decision addressed a challenge by VALINEA ENERGIE against an ex-parte evidence preservation order granted to TIRU regarding the patent EP3178578. VALINEA argued that TIRU breached its duty of loyalty and that the request was untimely, suggesting prior knowledge of the patented technology. The Court rejected these arguments, affirming that TIRU's urgency justified the initial ex-parte measure. Furthermore, the court denied VALINEA's attempt to increase the required security deposit.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This UPC procedural order sets the stage for a complex infringement case involving advanced electronic components. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd sued Laser Components SAS over patent EP3404726, focusing on specific electrode structures in PKB chips. The court confirmed key legal and factual disputes, including the interpretation of technical terms and the weight given to expert analysis. The parties have now moved into the oral hearing phase scheduled for March 13, 2025.
LAMA FRANCE v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P
This UPC decision addressed procedural requests following a substantive judgment, specifically concerning the stay of execution and confidentiality during information exchange. The court firmly rejected LAMA France's request to suspend the enforcement of the prior decision, citing lack of jurisdiction under current rules. However, it validated the need for a restricted confidential circle (club de confidentialité) to protect trade secrets related to financial data exchanged between the parties.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement and nullity action concerning compatible printer cartridges. The court affirmed the scope of direct infringement under Article 25 AJUB, ruling that prior knowledge by the defendant is not a prerequisite for establishing infringement. While the claimant sought broad remedies including injunctions and damages, the final judgment focused on compelling information disclosure to facilitate damage calculation, while rejecting provisional payment requests.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P v.Lama France
This procedural order addressed a request by Hewlett-Packard Development Company (HPDC) to call a witness in its infringement action against Lama France. While the court granted the request for the witness to testify orally in English, it rejected Lama's plea for simultaneous interpretation between French and English. The ruling emphasizes the practical application of UPC rules regarding language proficiency and procedural economy.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
This procedural order in the HPDC v LAMA infringement case addressed disputes over the scope of evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court strictly applied the Rules of Procedure, limiting what could be debated based on previous submissions. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to the structured phases of written proceedings within the UPC.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Hewlett-Packard's request for information disclosure against Lama France. HP sought details on third parties and import invoices related to alleged infringing cartridges. The court found that such requests are admissible throughout the litigation process if necessary for instruction. This decision allows HP to gather crucial evidence regarding the supply chain without immediately establishing infringement, setting a precedent for discovery-like procedures in UPC cases.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This UPC decision addressed procedural motions within an infringement case involving EP3404726. The claimant, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., sought to proceed against Laser Components SAS, while Photon Wave Co.,Ltd. intervened and requested a stay of the proceedings pending a parallel revocation action in the Central Division. The Court rejected the request for a stay, emphasizing procedural efficiency and noting that the infringement case was further along than the revocation case. However, the Court granted the request to allocate a technical judge to the panel.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order addressed the protection of confidential information in a trade secret dispute between C-Kore Systems Limited and Novawell. The Court established a confidentiality club to manage documents gathered during a Saisie procedure, ensuring compliance with EU trade secret directives and UPC rules. Crucially, the ruling affirmed that mutual agreement can override strict procedural requirements regarding the composition of the club, provided fairness is maintained.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This procedural order in the Paris Local Division addressed a request by Laser Components SAS to extend its deadline for filing its defense statement. The court rejected this request, finding that the defendant could not rely on technical difficulties or the ongoing intervention of a third party (Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.) as grounds for delay. The ruling reinforces the UPC's strict adherence to procedural deadlines and the principle of judicial efficiency.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order addressed an application for review filed by Novawell against a prior evidence preservation (saisie) order initiated by C-Kore Systems Limited regarding EP2265793. Novawell challenged the legality of the seizure, particularly questioning its compliance with French national law and UPC procedures. The Paris Local Division upheld the original order, ruling that the combination of a court-appointed expert and a bailiff satisfied all legal requirements and protected the rights of defense.
ICPillar LLC v.Arm Limited, Apical Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, SVF Holdco (and other ARM group companies)
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action against the ARM group, ICPillar LLC successfully petitioned the UPC Court of First Instance for permission to use an alternative method of service for four UK-based defendants. Since standard international service was pending, the claimant used courier services and bailiff reports to prove delivery. The court accepted this 'good service' request, confirming that procedural flexibility is available when ensuring timely notification in complex cross-border cases.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
In a procedural ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed a request by Laser Components SAS to change the language of proceedings from French to English. Although the patent in question (EP3404726) was granted in English, the Court found that there were insufficient grounds based on convenience or equity to mandate this change. The decision reinforces the procedural flexibility and the importance of respecting the initial filing choice made by parties in UPC litigation.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Newyu,Inc., etc.)
This procedural order in the DexCom v. Abbott case addressed the complexities of managing deadlines when multiple defendants are involved. The UPC granted an extension and aligned the Statement of Defence filing date for all 14 entities based on a mutual agreement between the parties. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach to ensuring fair procedure while accommodating the logistical challenges presented by large, multi-jurisdictional litigation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order in the Abbott v. Dexcom case addresses complexities arising from service issues across multiple defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur, utilizing UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), granted an extension and aligned the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence for all three Dexcom entities. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach to ensuring fair procedural timelines in multi-defendant infringement actions.
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.