Gillet
29 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
29 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This procedural order addressed a request for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an infringement action in the UPC. The Court confirmed that because the case was terminated before the conclusion of the written procedure, the Claimant was entitled to 60% of their paid court fees under Rule 370.9 RoP. This decision highlights the practical application of cost recovery rules when litigation is voluntarily withdrawn.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This UPC decision addressed preliminary objections regarding the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division in a complex infringement case involving multiple Bosch entities. The Court clarified that for Article 33(1)(b) AJUB to apply, the commercial link must exist among all defendants, not necessarily individually with the anchoring defendant. Crucially, 'same infringement' only requires violation of the same patent, not identical products. While rejecting the request to dismiss the case, the panel granted permission for an appeal, signaling a significant legal development on jurisdictional scope.
GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED et al. v.ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
In this procedural order concerning a costs request, the UPC Local Division addressed the financial concerns of ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A., the respondent in an infringement action involving EP 3 107 487 B1. The court determined that while the claimant's financial situation was considered, security for costs was necessary to protect the rights of the defendants. Consequently, ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A. was ordered to deposit €600,000 within 21 days.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd et autres sociétés du groupe Bosch
In this preliminary ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed objections raised by various Bosch entities challenging its internal jurisdiction over a patent infringement action brought by Valeo. Bosch argued that because the alleged infringing products did not apply to all defendants, the case should be transferred to another division (Düsseldorf). The court rejected these objections, clarifying that Article 33.1 b/ AJUB only requires the infringement to relate to the same patent among multiple defendants, regardless of product identity across all parties. This ruling clears the path for the merits phase of the infringement claim.
ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A. v.GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED et al.
In this preliminary objection case, Establishment Labs S.A. sued GC Aesthetics Group and its affiliates for infringing EP 3 107 487 B1 related to the Perle implant across multiple jurisdictions, including non-UPC states like Ireland and the UK. The Defendants challenged the UPC's jurisdiction over these national designations. The Local Division of Brussels dismissed the objection, affirming that the UPC possesses international jurisdiction over all parts of a European patent when one defendant is properly sued. This ruling clears the path for the merits phase to determine infringement across all claimed territories.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
Polidoro S.p.a. successfully sued Bekaert Combustion Technology for infringing its patent covering a specific type of premixed burner used in condensation boilers. The UPC Local Division Mannheim found infringement, leading to the granting of cease and desist orders against the Defendants across several UPCA member states. Although the initial claims were successful, the court also dismissed the counterclaim filed by the Defendants seeking revocation of the patent. This case highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where infringement can be established while a revocation defense is simultaneously rejected.
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.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In this preliminary objection case, Sun Patent Trust successfully defended its infringement action against Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether the UPC had jurisdiction to rule on FRAND terms alongside patent infringement of an SEP. The Court decisively rejected VIVO's argument, establishing that determining FRAND compliance is not a standalone claim but rather a necessary condition precedent for granting relief in an infringement action under Article 32(1)(a) UPCA. This ruling reinforces the integrated nature of SEP litigation within the UPC framework.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a significant preliminary objection ruling, the UPC rejected Vivo's challenge to its jurisdiction over an SEP infringement case. The core dispute centered on whether seeking a determination of FRAND terms constituted an independent claim outside the scope of the Unified Patent Convention (UPC). The Court clarified that while FRAND assessment is critical for SEPs, it is intrinsically linked to the main action for infringement and does not render the entire claim inadmissible. This decision reinforces the UPC's competence in handling complex SEP litigation involving both infringement and licensing conditions.
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.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order related to an infringement action, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed critical issues surrounding confidential information disclosure between Sun Patent Trust and Vivo Mobile Communication entities. The court meticulously defined categories for 'Confidential' and 'Highly Confidential' data within the Statement of Claim. This ruling sets strict parameters on who can view unredacted documents, limiting access to authorized legal counsel and necessary external experts, thereby balancing transparency with trade secret protection.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC addressed the critical issue of protecting confidential information within an ongoing infringement action involving Sun Patent Trust and Vivo Mobile Communication. The Court meticulously defined what constitutes 'Confidential' and 'Highly Confidential' data related to the patent EP3407524. This order sets stringent access controls, limiting unredacted documents only to authorized legal counsel and experts of the Defendants, thereby balancing the need for full disclosure in litigation with the imperative of protecting trade secrets.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG, Himson Engineering Private Limited
This UPC decision addressed a public access application filed by Bhagat Textile Engineers seeking access to documents in an infringement and revocation action. The court ultimately denied the access request, emphasizing that while transparency is important, it must be balanced against the integrity of the judicial process and the procedural rights of the parties involved. The ruling highlights the high bar for 'public interest' when a party seeks information primarily to support its own litigation strategy.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
In a procedural confirmation case, the UPC Paris Local Division confirmed a settlement reached between C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED and NOVAWELL regarding infringement of EP 2265793. The parties had initially engaged in both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. By confirming the settlement, the Court formally dismissed the proceedings while maintaining the confidentiality of the agreement's terms. This decision highlights the UPC's role in providing judicial finality to private commercial resolutions.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the procedural admissibility of a standalone revocation action filed by an intervener (Photon Wave) in an ongoing infringement case. The Local Division ultimately ruled that, based on principles of fairness and efficiency, the intervention was procedurally inadmissible, despite arguments regarding the general competence of the UPC. This ruling reinforces strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure concerning the rights and limitations of interveners within existing litigation frameworks.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case Oerlikon v Himson addresses key strategic issues in a complex infringement and revocation action concerning textile machinery. The Court confirmed that both parties' claims are narrowly focused on Claim 1, reinforcing the 'front loaded' principle of the UPC system. Furthermore, the court managed evidentiary disputes, allowing for video evidence while restricting late-stage document submissions to maintain procedural efficiency. This decision sets a clear path forward toward an oral hearing in mid-2025.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case UPC_CFI_240/2023 involves Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK (Claimant) against Himson Engineering Private Limited (Respondent) regarding patent EP2145848. The court addressed a scheduling conflict raised by the defendant and subsequently issued an order to postpone the Interim Conference. This highlights the UPC's procedural flexibility in managing complex litigation schedules.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order (UPC_CFI_240/2023), Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG addressed its infringement claim against Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding patent EP2145848. The court focused heavily on case management, defining the scope of evidence and arguments for the upcoming oral hearing. Key issues included Himson's counterclaim for revocation, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, and the admissibility of video and testimonial evidence. Due to a general strike in Italy, the interim conference was postponed.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile successfully sued Bhagat Textile Engineers for infringing its patent covering a false twist texturing machine. The Milan Local Division found infringement and issued an injunction prohibiting the sale and promotion of the infringing machine in Italy and Germany. Furthermore, the court imposed a penalty of 12,000 Euro per violation episode and awarded Oerlikon interim damages of 15,000 Euro.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order concerning the revocation of EP2145848, Oerlikon sought to introduce an eighth auxiliary request (AR8) based on new prior art. The UPC Court ruled against Oerlikon, emphasizing that Rule 30.2 ROP is a restrictive measure designed to prevent endless amendments and maintain procedural efficiency. This decision reinforces the strict requirements for introducing subsequent amendments in patent litigation.
CANÈ S.p.A. v.FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
In a case concerning infringement of EP3181168, CANÈ S.p.A. and FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE reached an amicable settlement before the UPC Paris Local Division. The court formally homologated this transaction, bringing an end to the litigation. A key aspect of the decision was the ruling on procedural costs, where the claimant successfully claimed a 60% reimbursement based on the timing of the agreement.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding sensitive documents submitted during an infringement action. The UPC ruled that certain redacted commercial data was protected as confidential information, granting access only to specific parties of the respondent's team. Conversely, a settlement agreement document was excluded from evidence entirely. This decision highlights the court's nuanced approach to balancing trade secret protection with procedural fairness in complex patent litigation.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order within an infringement action, Oerlikon Textile sought protection for confidential information contained in documents submitted during litigation. The UPC Court addressed two key documents: a settlement agreement (Doc n. 37) and commercial data (Doc n. 38). The court ultimately excluded the highly sensitive settlement agreement from evidence while granting Himson Engineering limited, controlled access to the redacted commercial data under strict confidentiality rules.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG initiated infringement proceedings against Bhagat Textile Engineers concerning a textile machinery patent (EP2145848). The case is currently in the procedural phase, with the court addressing key evidentiary issues such as whether the defendant commercialized the infringing machines. The judge issued a detailed order setting strict deadlines for both parties to submit documents related to expert reports, royalties, and settlement proposals. This ruling highlights the UPC's rigorous approach to evidence management before proceeding to trial.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This procedural order from the UPC Court of First Instance addresses the balance between public transparency and the protection of confidential business information during an infringement case. The court confirmed that while proceedings are generally public, it retains the power to limit access during the interim conference if sensitive data is discussed. This decision provides clear guidance on how parties can manage their proprietary information within the UPC framework.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division granted a motion for confidentiality concerning sensitive financial and commercial information provided during cost documentation. The Court found that because the respondent did not object, it was permissible to limit access to these 'redacted' documents exclusively to the respondent's legal counsel. This decision reinforces the flexibility of the Unified Patent Court system to protect trade secrets while maintaining procedural fairness.
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.
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.