Carine Gillet
26 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
26 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
Procedural Order
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch DOO, Robert Bosch France S.A.S., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Produkcie S.A., Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the Bosch defendants for revision of an earlier order rejecting their preliminary objections to the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division. The court addressed the two conditions of Article 33.1(b) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court for establishing jurisdiction over multiple defendants, holding that the commercial link requirement applies between all defendants collectively and that the 'same alleged infringement' condition refers to infringement of the same patent rather than identity of the infringing products. The panel rejected the revision request, confirmed the Paris Local Division's jurisdiction, and granted leave to appeal.
GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others v.Establishment Labs S.A.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (a group of GC Aesthetics entities and Romed N.V.) for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP against the claimant Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS) in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 107 487 B1. The defendants argued that LABS, incorporated in Costa Rica, posed an enforcement risk because Costa Rica had not ratified the Hague Judgement Convention and there was no precedent for enforcing UPC costs orders there. The Court ordered LABS to provide security of €600,000 within 21 days, either by deposit into a UPC account or by bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch DOO Beograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Productie S.A. and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage brought a patent infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against six entities of the Bosch group concerning European Patent EP 4144599 B1. Five Bosch defendants (later joined by the sixth) filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 challenging the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division and the language of proceedings, arguing that the conditions of Article 33.1(b) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court were not met. The judge-rapporteur joined the two preliminary objections and rejected them, holding that the requirement that the action concern the 'same infringement' refers to the violation of the same patent by all defendants and does not require identity of the products alleged to infringe across all defendants.
GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others v.Establishment Labs S.A.
This case concerns a Preliminary Objection filed by 13 defendants associated with GC Aesthetics challenging the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) jurisdiction over alleged infringements of EP 3 107 487 B1 in non-UPC contracting states (Ireland, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). The defendants argued that the claimant, Establishment Labs S.A., relied solely on the domicile of Defendant 13 (Romed N.V.) in Belgium without evidencing any activities in non-UPC countries. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the Preliminary Objection, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction over all national designations of the European patent when at least one defendant is rightfully sued before the UPC, and that the substantive assessment of infringement in those territories belongs to the merits stage.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against three Vivo entities concerning European patent EP3852468. Vivo filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over the FRAND-related claims and that the Paris Local Division lacked internal competence. The Court rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, holding that the Paris Local Division had internal competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, and deferred the question of admissibility of the FRAND terms claim (A.II) to the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 RoP.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action against Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3407524. Vivo filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction because Sun Patent's request for a FRAND determination constituted a standalone claim outside the scope of Article 32 UPCA, and that the Paris Local Division lacked internal competence. The Court rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, holding that the Paris Local Division had internal competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, and ruling that the admissibility of the FRAND-related claim (A.II) under Article 32.1 UPCA would be addressed in the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 RoP.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerning an application for provisional measures filed by Guardant Health, Inc. against four Sophia Genetics entities based on four European patents. The order sets the date for the oral hearing and establishes a procedural timeline for objections and replies.
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.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities regarding European Patent EP3852468. Sun Patent Trust filed applications under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP to classify certain parts of its Statement of Claim and supporting Exhibits as confidential or highly confidential. The court granted the application in part, classifying specific information as confidential (accessible to Defendants' representatives, legal team, and named employees who signed NDAs) and highly confidential (restricted to the Defendants' representative, his legal team, and three named VIVO employees).
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524 before the Paris Local Division. Concurrently, Sun Patent Trust sought to classify certain information in its Statement of Claim and supporting Exhibits as confidential and highly confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The court issued a procedural order defining the scope of confidentiality protection, restricting access to confidential and highly confidential information to specific named representatives, legal teams, and limited employees of the Vivo defendants.
Bhagat Textile Engineers - Application for Access to Case File (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) v.Ex Parte
Bhagat Textile Engineers, a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to the case file of a counterclaim for revocation filed by Himson Engineering in an infringement action brought by Oerlikon Textile regarding patent EP2145848. Bhagat sought access to support its pending appeal and suspension request in a parallel proceeding where it had been found liable for infringement. The Milan Local Division rejected the application, holding that the information sought could be obtained through published court decisions or would be available with the final decision, and that the integrity of the proceedings outweighed Bhagat's interest in using the documents for defense in another forum.
C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell
C-Kore Systems Limited filed an infringement action against Novawell before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 265 793, and Novawell filed a counterclaim for revocation. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement on 10 December 2024, and jointly requested the Court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court confirmed the settlement, ordered that the proceedings and counterclaim be dismissed, kept the settlement details confidential, and noted the parties' agreement on costs with no order as to costs.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
Order
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
Procedural Order
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rescheduling an Interim Conference in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2145848. The defendant Himson Engineering Private Limited declared unavailability due to prior professional commitments, and the court rescheduled the conference to the afternoon of the same day and converted it to a video-conference format with the agreement of all parties.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848, owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG against Himson Engineering Private Limited. The order sets out the agenda for the upcoming Interim Conference and Oral Hearing, addressing issues including settlement possibilities, translation errors in the Italian patent validation, Himson's counterclaim for revocation, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, the infringement claim, and ancillary measures. The Interim Conference was postponed from 29 November 2024 to 6 December 2024 due to a general strike in Italy.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 145 848 B1 ('false twist texturing machine') with unitary effect in Italy and Germany, sued Bhagat Textile Engineers for infringement after Bhagat exhibited an allegedly infringing machine at the ITMA trade fair in Milan in June 2023. Bhagat did not contest the validity of the patent or the infringement, but denied damages and sought suspension pending a parallel revocation action. The Milan Local Division found infringement, granted a permanent injunction with a penalty, awarded provisional damages, and ordered Bhagat to bear 80% of the costs.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order concerns Oerlikon's application under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure to file an eighth auxiliary request (AR8) to amend European Patent EP 2 145 848 B1 in infringement proceedings against Himson Engineering. The court refused the application, finding that AR8 was not an effective response to the new prior art attack based on US '795, could have been introduced earlier with respect to DE '042, was not capable of influencing the outcome, and violated Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC.
CANÈ S.p.A. v.France Développement Électronique
CANÈ S.p.A., an Italian company and proprietor of European patent EP3181168, brought a patent infringement action against France Développement Électronique (FDE) before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement through the delivery and offering of 'So-Easy' devices in France, Germany, and Italy. FDE did not contest the validity of the patent or the infringement but undertook to cease infringing activities. The parties reached a settlement agreement on June 20, 2024, which the court homologated, ordering reimbursement of €9,100 in procedural fees to CANÈ and withdrawal of certain exhibits from the proceedings.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of certain documents filed by Oerlikon in an infringement action regarding EP2145848. The court addressed the treatment of two documents: Document 37 (a Settlement Agreement with a Chinese operator) was withdrawn from evidence entirely, while Document 38 (commercial data) was granted confidential status with restricted access to a defined 'club' of individuals.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information filed by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG in an infringement action against Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding patent EP2145848. Oerlikon sought confidentiality protection for two documents (a Settlement Agreement with a Chinese third party and commercial data), requesting access be restricted to Himson's lawyers only. The Court excluded Document 37 from the evidentiary record entirely after Oerlikon withdrew it, and granted restricted 'club' access to Document 38 for Himson's lawyer, one technical consultant, and one natural person representing Himson.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Milan in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2145848. The order addresses various procedural matters following the Interim Conference, including the claimant's access to the expert's report from the prior evidence preservation order, deadlines for further submissions, the value of the case, and confirmation of the oral hearing date.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848 owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers. The order addresses preparations for an interim conference scheduled for 27 May 2024, balancing the principle of public transparency with the protection of confidential information, particularly regarding litigation costs.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request under Rule 262A RoP for a confidentiality order. The applicant Oerlikon sought to protect financial information (document no. 19) filed in preparation for the Interim Conference regarding costs documentation, requesting that access be limited to a 'club' of only Bhagat's lawyers, excluding the party itself. The respondent Bhagat did not oppose the request, and the court granted the confidentiality order, finding the information qualified as confidential under Article 58 UPCA.
C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell
This case concerns a review of an ex parte order for preserving evidence (saisie) issued by the Paris Local Division. C-Kore Systems Limited, proprietor of European patent EP 2 265 793 relating to subsea testing apparatus, obtained an ex parte saisie order against Novawell, a former customer alleged to have developed a competing product called 'SICOM'. Novawell sought to have the order revoked, but the Court dismissed the review application in its entirety, finding the request admissible, the evidence sufficient, and the measures compliant with both UPC rules and French national law.
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.