Dr Thom
49 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
49 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
beMatrix NV. v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a rectification of an earlier provisional measures order in the dispute between beMatrix NV. and Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. The original application sought preliminary injunctions against alleged infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1, which covers display modules for temporary exhibition stands. The Court ultimately corrected a clerical error in its prior ruling, ensuring that the Defendant was properly ordered to cease and desist from infringing the patent. This highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting administrative or drafting errors.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In this UPC decision, the Court of First Instance addressed a request by Wizart Inc. to impose security for legal costs on Leap Tools Inc., citing the latter's Canadian base and estimated revenue. The court ultimately rejected the motion, emphasizing that simply being non-EU or having moderate revenue is not enough to establish an undue burden of enforcement. Practitioners should note that applicants seeking security must provide detailed evidence regarding foreign law recognition and enforceability, rather than relying on general nationality arguments.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH
In a case involving ETRI against Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and associated defendants, the UPC Court of First Instance permitted the withdrawal of the infringement action. This decision followed a settlement reached between the parties, leading to the closure of the proceedings. While all parties agreed to bear their own costs, the court specifically ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the initial court fees to ETRI.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA concerning the diagnostic instrument and method covered by EP 3 756 767 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. This decision highlights the procedural implications of bifurcated UPC cases, confirming that a finding of non-infringement renders the validity question moot for the immediate action. It also sets clear parameters regarding cost allocation in unsuccessful litigation.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
In a case involving ETRI against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and several related entities, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf permitted the withdrawal of an infringement action concerning EP 3258692. The parties reached a settlement agreement before the written procedure concluded. Consequently, the court closed the proceedings and ordered the Claimant to receive a partial reimbursement of the Court fees.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This procedural order in the UPC case Align Technology v. Angelalign Technology concerns a request for leave to appeal an earlier decision that restricted the Defendants' ability to submit late-filed non-infringement arguments and further written pleadings during provisional measures proceedings. The Court of First Instance ultimately denied this request, asserting its discretion under the Rules of Procedure (RoP) in managing the case efficiently. This ruling underscores the court's authority to strictly manage procedural timelines, even when those orders significantly impact the substantive defense.
Headwater Research LLC v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC allowed both parties to withdraw their respective actions. Headwater Research LLC withdrew its infringement claim against Apple Inc., and in return, the Defendants agreed to withdraw their counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 107 243 B1. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to a swift closure of complex patent litigation proceedings within the UPC framework.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG sought provisional measures at the UPC Düsseldorf Local Division to preserve evidence by inspecting a 'disposable morcellator' exhibited by Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. during the MEDICA trade fair, citing suspected infringement of EP 2 593 025 B1. The Applicant argued that detailed analysis was necessary to confirm component identity and potential infringement. However, the Court ultimately rejected the application for preservation of evidence.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG sought provisional measures, specifically an inspection of a competitor's product (MORCELLIX) exhibited at MEDICA, to assess potential infringement of its laparoscopic morcellator patent. The UPC Local Division granted the request for evidence preservation and inspection but rejected the broader application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the court's willingness to facilitate early technical investigations necessary for complex medical device cases.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division rejected Surftown GmbH's attempt to extend critical deadlines in a complex infringement/revocation case involving wave machine technology. The Defendants argued that delays caused by confidentiality procedures unfairly disadvantaged them compared to the Claimant. However, the Court firmly maintained that extensions must be based on genuine legal complications or hindrances, not simply on comparative timing advantages. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to strict adherence to procedural timelines and efficient case management.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC Local Division dismissed the Defendants' demand that Align Technology provide security for legal costs. The Defendants had argued that due to the Applicant being based in the United States, enforcement of any potential costs award would incur substantial and potentially non-reimbursable expenses. However, the Court found that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof, specifically by not providing evidence on the foreign law applicable for enforcement in the US. This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required when seeking security for costs within the UPC.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's attempt to introduce new claims related to indirect patent infringement outside of the established case management framework. The Court strictly enforced procedural rules, finding that these new requests constituted an impermissible amendment to the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance for patentees to adhere rigorously to the UPC's procedural timetable and filing requirements when seeking expanded relief.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In this procedural order, Ona Patents SL sought to review a previous court decision regarding an interim conference, arguing that related parallel proceedings had generated new relevant arguments. The UPC Local Division dismissed the request, emphasizing the legal independence of different cases within the Unified Patent Court framework. This ruling reinforces strict adherence to case management procedures and limits the ability of parties to introduce late or external material simply to influence scheduling.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 110 072 B1, the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf corrected an error in its prior decision. The case involved Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., addressing issues related to patent infringement and costs. The court's ruling focused solely on rectifying a clerical and calculation mistake regarding the reimbursement of claimant fees.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural matter concerning a pending revocation counterclaim in an infringement action involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics. The Court allowed the Defendants to withdraw their counterclaim because no final appeal had been lodged against prior decisions, which was consented to by the Claimant. Consequently, the proceedings related to the counterclaim were closed, with both parties agreeing to bear their own costs.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC initiated a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics and its subsidiaries regarding EP 3 110 072 B1. However, before the written procedure concluded, the Claimant voluntarily withdrew the suit with the full agreement of all Defendants. The UPC Local Division Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawal, leading to the closure of the proceedings. Notably, the Court applied rules allowing for a 60% reimbursement of court fees for the Defendants due to the early withdrawal.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, and bioMérieux Benelux BV
Labrador Diagnostics LLC has initiated a patent infringement action against multiple bioMérieux entities before the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 756 767 B1. This procedural order sets the stage for the litigation, scheduling an oral hearing for November 27, 2025. The parties are now required to prepare their arguments and attend the hearing, which will be audio recorded.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
In a case involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawal of an ongoing infringement action. Although the court had previously dismissed the infringement claim and revoked the patent (to the extent of claim 1), the parties mutually agreed to terminate the proceedings. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing actions to be withdrawn when there is no pending appeal and mutual consent exists.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a request for the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of both an infringement action and associated counterclaims. The Court analyzed the procedural status of the case—specifically that regular pleadings had been exchanged, but the written procedure was not formally closed. Applying relevant Rules of Procedure (R. 370.9(b)(ii)), the Court granted a partial reimbursement of 40% of the fees to the Defendants.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a costs application following the withdrawal of an infringement action against Apple Inc. The Court determined that despite the case not being formally closed, the extensive exchange of pleadings warranted only a partial reimbursement of court fees. This ruling provides clarity on how the UPC assesses fee reimbursement when parties withdraw actions during the written procedure phase.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC issued an order clarifying confidentiality obligations in the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings involving Ona Patents SL and Google Ireland Limited. The court explicitly classified certain contract documents and internal company information as confidential under UPCA rules. This decision reinforces the strict handling requirements for sensitive commercial data within the unified patent litigation framework, ensuring that proprietary information is protected during the legal process.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf issued a confidentiality order concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, Ona Patents SL, restricting access to sensitive exhibits and documents. Crucially, the court also prevented the disclosure of this confidential information to parallel national proceedings, setting a strong precedent for maintaining secrecy within UPC litigation.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed Ona Patents SL to withdraw its infringement action against Apple Inc., and simultaneously permitted the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation filed by the defendants. The court confirmed that since all parties had reached an agreement regarding cost allocation (each party bearing its own costs), no formal cost decision was required under the Rules of Procedure. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can streamline litigation, even when complex infringement and validity issues are involved.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG; Siemens Healthcare GmbH; Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V.; Siemens Healthcare SAS
In a procedural order concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2 352 431 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues of trade secret protection. The court granted the request to classify certain information regarding the design and functioning of the attacked embodiments as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the mechanism for protecting sensitive commercial data during complex UPC litigation involving major medical device manufacturers.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the protection of confidential information in a complex infringement and revocation action concerning surfing technology (EP 2 728 089 B1). The Court meticulously defined which technical details within the defense statements and briefs must be classified as confidential. This ruling reinforces the strict confidentiality protocols available under the UPC framework, ensuring that sensitive commercial information remains protected during litigation.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf stayed infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 252 857. The stay was granted because the issues raised in this case are substantially identical to those currently under appeal regarding patent EP 3 536 712. This decision prioritizes judicial efficiency and proper administration of justice, preventing redundant litigation while respecting fundamental rights.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf halted proceedings to address critical deficiencies in the Claimant's evidence regarding patent ownership. The court found that the documentation supporting various assignments and authorizations was confusing or incomplete, particularly concerning retroactive approvals. This ruling underscores the necessity for claimants to provide a clear, legally sound chain of title when asserting infringement rights under the UPC.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
In this UPC decision, N.V. Nutricia and Nestlé Health Science reached a settlement leading to the withdrawal of the infringement action concerning EP 2 359 858 B1. The court confirmed that an estimated assessment is sufficient for valuing actions in settled cases. Although the infringement claim was dropped, the counterclaim for revocation was disposed of, with both parties ultimately bearing their own costs.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France, S.A.S., Samsung Electronics GmbH
In a significant decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the infringement claim brought by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics while simultaneously granting the counterclaim for revocation regarding Claim 1 of EP 3 110 069 B1. The patent covered traffic control mechanisms in wireless devices, specifically related to Android's Data Saver functionality. This outcome highlights that a successful validity challenge can completely negate an infringement claim within the UPC framework.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
This UPC decision confirms the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures concerning EP 1 957 544 B1. DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC., the applicant, successfully withdrew its request with the agreement of Greenchemicals S.R.L., the defendant. The court formally closed the proceedings and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees to the Applicant. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to discontinue an action.
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.