Camille Lignieres
20 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
20 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed a patent infringement action against Zentiva Portugal before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), based on a threat of infringement following an INFARMED communication. Zentiva raised a preliminary objection arguing the UPC lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved an administrative matter falling under Portuguese administrative courts. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC has exclusive competence over European patent infringement actions and that the dispute between two private parties did not concern an administrative matter.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Abbott Diabetes Care sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini alleging infringement of European patent EP 3 988 471 (relating to displays for a medical device) by Sinocare's GlucoMen iCan continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, which Menarini distributes in Europe. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) dismissed the application, finding that the defendants' CGM system more likely than not does not infringe independent claims 1 and 14 of the patent because event data icons are not included in the timeline graph as required by the claims. Abbott was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 as an interim award of costs.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Abbott Diabetes Care sought provisional measures before the Unified Patent Court against Sinocare and Menarini concerning European patent EP 4 344 633 for 'Analyte Sensor Assemblies' related to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. Abbott alleged that the GlucoMen iCan CGM system, manufactured by Sinocare and distributed by Menarini in Europe, infringed its patent. The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding Abbott had established a strong prima facie case of infringement, the patent appeared valid, urgency existed, and the balance of interests favored Abbott.
Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
This procedural order concerns an application for provisional measures filed by Merz entities against Viatris Santé regarding European Patent EP2377536 and its French Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) FR13C0033. Merz sought an order requiring Viatris to consolidate its 473-page Objection into a shorter document, arguing the disparity in submission lengths would deprive them of an equal opportunity to defend their case. The judge rapporteur found the 470-page objection inappropriate in the context of provisional measures and ordered Viatris to file a 70-page summary, with Merz permitted a 40-page reply.
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, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS against eight defendants, including Adobe entities, OpenAI entities, TruePic Inc., and others, regarding European Patent EP2949070. The order addresses requests for extension of time limits under Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure, aligning the starting date for all defendants' deadlines to September 4, 2025, and granting an exceptional 4-week extension. The defendants were ordered to file any preliminary objections by November 3, 2025, and their defense submissions by January 2, 2026.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 178 578 (a waste incineration installation patent held by TIRU). TIRU sought joinder of its parallel infringement actions against VALINEA ENERGIE and MAGUIN, transfer of the defendants' counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division Paris (already seized by VEOLIA PROPRETE's revocation action), and a stay of the infringement proceedings. The panel ordered the joinder of the two infringement actions, transferred the counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division, but rejected the request for a stay of the infringement proceedings at this stage.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Paris concerning patent EP 3 178 578 (a waste incineration installation patent held by TIRU). TIRU had filed infringement actions against MAGUIN SAS (manufacturer of the alleged infringing incinerator) and VALINEA ENERGIE (exploiter of the incinerator), while VEOLIA PROPRETE had filed a revocation action before the Central Division Paris. The court ordered the joinder of the two infringement actions, transferred the counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division, and rejected TIRU's request for a stay of the infringement proceedings.
N.J Diffusion SARL v.Gisela Mayer GmbH
This procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action (ACT_39091/2024) regarding European Patent EP2404516 initiated by N.J Diffusion SARL against Gisela Mayer GmbH. After judicial reorganization proceedings were opened against N.J Diffusion on June 5, 2025, Gisela Mayer sought a security for costs guarantee of €50,000 under Rule 158 RoP and a postponement of the oral hearing. The panel admitted the voluntary intervention of the judicial administrator and judicial agent, but declared the guarantee request inadmissible, holding that granting such a guarantee to one creditor of a debtor in judicial reorganization would violate the principle of equality of creditors under French collective proceedings law.
VALINEA ENERGIE v.TIRU
VALINEA ENERGIE sought retraction and, subsidiarily, revision of an ex parte order dated 23 December 2024 that authorized evidence preservation measures (seizure and site visit) in favor of TIRU, the holder of European patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration installation. The court rejected all of VALINEA's arguments, finding no breach of the duty of loyalty by TIRU, that the ex parte procedure was justified, that the request was not untimely, and that the security deposit of 10,000 euros was appropriate.
MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU
MAGUIN SAS sought review (retraction) of an ex parte order granting TIRU's application for evidence preservation measures (seizure and site visit) based on TIRU's European patent EP 3 178 578 concerning waste incineration installations. MAGUIN argued lack of urgency, absence of risk of evidence destruction, and breach of TIRU's duty of loyalty by allegedly concealing prior art. The Local Division Paris rejected all three grounds and dismissed MAGUIN's request for retraction.
LAMA France v.Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
This case concerns procedural requests filed by LAMA France in response to an enforcement application by Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) following a November 13, 2024 infringement decision concerning European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. LAMA sought a stay of execution, a restricted confidentiality circle limited to counsel only, and subsidiarily a €2 million guarantee. The Local Division of Paris rejected the stay request for lack of jurisdiction, partially granted the confidentiality circle request under Rule 262A RoP, and rejected the guarantee request.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) brought a patent infringement action against LAMA France before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging that LAMA's compatible ink cartridges infringed European Patents EP 1 737 669 and EP 2 089 230 relating to fluid ejection devices in inkjet printers. LAMA counterclaimed for invalidity of both patents on grounds including insufficient description, extension beyond the application, and lack of patentability. The Court upheld the validity of both patents, found LAMA liable for infringement, and ordered injunctive relief, corrective measures, and information disclosure, while rejecting LAMA's preliminary questions to the CJEU and splitting costs equally between the parties.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The court granted Hewlett-Packard Development Company's request to hear a witness at the oral hearing, who was the author of written attestations already produced and whose evidentiary value was contested by LAMA France. The court rejected LAMA France's request for simultaneous English-to-French interpretation during the witness hearing, finding it unnecessary since English is one of the two procedural languages of the Paris Local Division and the common working language of the court.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Lama France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The defendant LAMA France sought to exclude portions of the claimant HPDC's July 15, 2024 submission that addressed infringement issues, arguing these were outside the scope of the reply permitted under Rules 29(e) and 32.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The judge-rapporteur granted the request, ordering that HPDC's submission be limited to point 3 (validity) and that LAMA's corresponding August 16, 2024 submission be limited to points 3 and 4.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Lama France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action brought by Hewlett-Packard Development Company against Lama France based on European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The court ruled on Hewlett-Packard's request under Rule 191 RoP for an order compelling Lama France to disclose information about third parties involved in the production and distribution of the allegedly infringing products. The court found the request admissible and partially granted it in more limited terms than requested, ordering disclosure of certain invoices related to parallel importation from outside the EU, subject to confidentiality measures and without a penalty.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3404726. The defendant Laser Components SAS requested an extension of the deadline to file its statement of defense, citing technical difficulties experienced by the intervening third party Photon Wave Co., Ltd. and the need for coordination. The court rejected the request, holding that the intervenor had not suffered prejudice and that the defendant had not demonstrated its own technical difficulties, and ordered Laser Components to submit its defense brief by March 18, 2024.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited and Others (Procedural Order on Alternative Service)
ICPillar LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP3000239, filed an infringement action against 12 defendants of the ARM group. This procedural order addressed ICPillar's application under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure for an alternative method of service of the Statement of Claim on four UK-based defendants (Arm Limited, Apical Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, and SVF Holdco). The Paris Local Division deemed the Statement of Claim served on 7 February 2024, based on bailiff-confirmed deliveries via FedEx and DHL.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action (ACT_588685/2023) related to European Patent EP3404726 held by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The defendant, Laser Components SAS, requested a change of the language of procedure from French to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding that the claimant's choice of French respected the rights of the French defendant and that no serious reasons of convenience or fairness justified a change of language.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action filed by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against three Dexcom entities regarding European Patent EP3988471. The order addresses the extension and alignment of deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence, following difficulties with service of the Statement of Claim. The Judge-Rapporteur aligned the starting point for the Statement of Defence period for all three defendants to 15/01/2024, with the deadline set at 15/04/2024.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott France, Abbott, Abbott B.V., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Oy, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Logistics B.V., and Newyu, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, primarily comprising various Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The order addresses service difficulties and aligns the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur accepted the parties' agreed extension, setting the Statement of Defence deadline to 15 March 2024, with the starting point aligned to 15 December 2023.
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.