Dr Thom
49 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
49 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc.
10x Genomics sued Curio Bioscience for infringing its patent covering spatial detection of nucleic acids using array technology. After a detailed examination by the Düsseldorf Local Division, the court issued a mixed ruling. While infringement was found for certain claims (like Claim 14), the core claim (Claim 1) was not infringed. The action resulted in partial success for 10x Genomics, setting out specific financial and operational parameters for future enforcement.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
In this costs application concerning an infringement and revocation action, the Defendants sought to compel Headwater Research LLC (the Claimant) to provide substantial security for legal costs due to its US domicile. The UPC Local Division dismissed this request, finding that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. The court emphasized that a mere argument about enforcement difficulty is insufficient, especially when the claimant possesses significant, revenue-generating assets like a large patent portfolio.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a request for security for costs filed by Siemens Healthineers against Hologic in an infringement and revocation action. Siemens argued that enforcing potential cost orders would be unduly burdensome due to Hologic's US domicile, citing lack of international judgment recognition treaties. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the burden lies on the applicant to prove undue burden with specific evidence regarding foreign law application. This ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required for security for costs applications in UPC proceedings.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
In a preliminary procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted a strict confidentiality order protecting financial information submitted by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. The court found that the Defendant failed to prove the public availability of this sensitive data, justifying the protection under UPCA rules. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to safeguarding proprietary business information during litigation.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Benelux BV
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the complex interplay between an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 756 767 B1. Following the parties' agreement and considering efficiency, the court opted to refer the revocation counterclaim to the Milan Central Division while allowing the infringement proceedings to continue locally. The panel also determined that a stay of the infringement case was not warranted at this preliminary stage, setting the path for parallel litigation tracks.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
Ona Patents SL initiated infringement proceedings against Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, which included a counterclaim for revocation. In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division decided to proceed with a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. This decision streamlines the process by ensuring that validity and infringement are assessed under a single, uniform interpretation of the patent by the same judicial panel.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
In a recent procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate the infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL against Google entities with the counterclaim for revocation. This strategic decision was made at the request and consent of both parties. By combining these two complex issues into one hearing, the court aims to enhance efficiency and ensure that any determination of patent validity is applied uniformly when assessing infringement.
Per Aarsleff A/S v.IMS Robotics GmbH and IMS Robotics Nordic A/S
In a procedural decision concerning EP 2 129 956, the Unified Patent Court allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This case highlights how UPC proceedings can be concluded amicably through mutual consent, even when complex actions are involved. Practitioners should note that while the main dispute was dropped, the court still managed the procedural aspects, including setting the value in dispute and ordering partial reimbursement of court fees.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In the case of Valeo Electrification v. Magna PT entities, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Local Division formally closed proceedings after both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants subsequently withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This decision highlights the importance of party autonomy in UPC litigation, allowing cases to be terminated amicably even when complex patent disputes are involved.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In a procedural decision concerning EP 3 320 604 B1, the UPC Local Division allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Valeo Electrification withdrew its patent infringement action against Magna entities, while the Defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and a license. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to the closure of complex IP litigation without a substantive ruling on validity or infringement.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories (and associated entities)
This UPC decision in Düsseldorf concerns the mutual withdrawal of a patent infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against various Abbott entities, alongside a corresponding counterclaim for revocation. The parties agreed to terminate all proceedings, including the application to amend the patent in suit. While the core dispute was resolved through consent, the court issued specific orders regarding the reimbursement of court fees, setting the value in dispute at EUR 4 million each.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a request for security of legal costs concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled in favor of the Defendants (Apple group). The court found that due to the Claimant's limited financial disclosure and minimal share capital, there was a legitimate concern regarding the recoverability of potential cost orders. Consequently, the Claimant was ordered to provide security amounting to EUR 500,000.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a request for security of legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled against Ona Patents SL. The court found that despite the Claimant's arguments regarding its solvency, it failed to provide sufficient financial evidence to convince the court. Consequently, the court ordered Ona Patents SL to deposit EUR 500,000 as security for the Defendants' potential legal costs. This decision highlights the stringent requirements placed on NPEs seeking enforcement in UPC proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a request for security of legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ordered Curio Bioscience Inc. to provide EUR 200,000 in security to 10x Genomics, Inc. The case centered on whether a claimant could successfully petition for cost security against a defendant under the UPCA framework. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of 10x Genomics, acknowledging the voluntary nature of litigation while balancing this with procedural fairness.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application by Fujifilm Corporation seeking to overturn a previous decision that denied them permission for a further written submission. The dispute centered on the right of prior use defense raised by Kodak entities. The UPC Panel dismissed the request, emphasizing that strict adherence to procedural timelines is crucial in complex patent litigation. This ruling reinforces the principle that parties must manage their filing deadlines carefully to avoid unnecessary delays in proceedings.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In a significant ruling for the carbonation device market, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf found that SodaStream Industries Ltd. successfully proved infringement against Aarke AB regarding their respective carbonator products. The court granted an interim damages award of EUR 250,000 and issued a cease and desist order based on Claim 1 of EP 1 793 917. This decision reinforces the importance of precise claim construction under Art. 69 EPC while providing immediate relief to the patent holder.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 1793917), the defendant Aarke AB sought to adjourn the oral hearing, citing an outstanding appeal regarding a request for security for costs. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected this request. The court clarified that appeals related to certain orders do not automatically halt main proceedings, especially when the order in question (security for costs) does not fall under the specific exceptions of Art. 74 (3) UPCA.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
This UPC decision addressed a request by the Defendant, Aarke AB, to impose security for legal costs against the Claimant, SodaStream Industries Ltd., in an ongoing infringement action. The Court of First Instance dismissed the panel review application, confirming that the initial judge-rapporteur correctly found no sufficient grounds (financial risk or unenforceability) to mandate security. This ruling reinforces the standard that financial capability and lack of evidence regarding bad faith are key factors when assessing cost security requests in UPC proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.SIBIO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; UMEDWINGS NETHERLANDS B.V.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached in an application for provisional measures concerning EP 2 393 417 B1, which covers analyte sensors. The settlement mandates that the Defendants cease offering the infringing products in Germany, France, and the Netherlands, destroy existing stock, recall products from distribution channels, and compensate the Applicant for all damages on the merits. This case highlights how parties can resolve complex infringement disputes early through negotiated settlements within the UPC framework.
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.