in Ulrike Vo
27 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
27 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning a patent infringement case, the court addressed a motion by MediaTek Germany GmbH to require cost security from Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering Huawei to deposit €150,000 as security for legal costs. This ruling highlights the UPC's approach to balancing procedural fairness and financial risk when dealing with international parties, particularly those based outside the EU/EEA.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
Huawei initiated infringement proceedings against MediaTek regarding its Dimensity series chips, which are alleged to infringe EP 3 905 840 B1. A key procedural development was the dispute over the disclosure of confidential license agreements and licensee names. The UPC court issued a detailed order granting protective measures under Rule 262A VerfO, strictly limiting access to sensitive information while allowing the infringement case to proceed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a complex infringement case involving Huawei and MediaTek concerning 5G-capable Dimensity chips, the UPC issued an interim procedural order focusing on confidentiality. The court granted extensive protection for trade secrets related to licensing agreements, limiting access to highly sensitive information only to specific parties. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for managing confidential data during litigation, which is crucial in high-tech patent disputes.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC case concerning an infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek, the court issued a procedural order focused entirely on protecting trade secrets. The defendant successfully petitioned for strict confidentiality measures regarding sensitive information submitted in their defense pleadings. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, ensuring that proprietary knowledge remains shielded from public view and unauthorized access during litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a request for confidentiality regarding trade secrets arising from license negotiations between Huawei and MediaTek. The court successfully granted an order classifying specific documents as confidential information. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within UPC proceedings by applying existing rules analogously to ensure secrecy.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd sued MediaTek Germany GmbH for patent infringement concerning EP 4 142 215. The court addressed a request by MediaTek to protect confidential information submitted during the proceedings. The UPC granted an order establishing strict confidentiality measures, limiting access to trade secrets to specific parties and counsel. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing public transparency with the protection of sensitive business interests.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by MediaTek Germany GmbH to protect confidential information related to its licensing negotiations with Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court found that these documents constituted trade secrets and issued an order mandating strict confidentiality for all parties involved in the proceedings. This ruling reinforces the protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, even when public disclosure is otherwise expected.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 602 692, the claimant (Phoenix Contact) voluntarily withdrew its infringement suit against the respondents. The court subsequently allowed the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation as well. This decision highlights that voluntary withdrawals can lead to the termination of proceedings and trigger specific rules regarding the refund of court fees, providing a clear procedural path for parties seeking an amicable resolution.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG to withdraw its infringement claim against Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH. This withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties as part of an out-of-court settlement. Although the merits were not decided, the court issued a detailed cost allocation, refunding fees to both sides based on the timing of the withdrawals.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
Dolby International AB sought provisional measures at the UPC to prevent Roku, Inc. from pursuing Anti-Suit or Anti-Enforcement Injunctions in US courts related to the HEVC standard patent EP 3 490 258. The court ultimately denied Dolby's request for these protective measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate sufficient urgency and risk; otherwise, they may be liable for costs.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku, Inc.
In this UPC decision, Sun Patent Trust sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) against Roku, Inc., aiming to prevent Roku from pursuing related anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunctions in US courts. The court ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate a genuine risk of irreparable harm; here, the court found that the requested AASI was likely futile and risked prejudicing the claimant's rights without proper preliminary steps.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd's request to classify specific documents and information shared during infringement proceedings against MediaTek Germany GmbH as confidential trade secrets. The court affirmed that parties can successfully invoke Art. 58 EPC and Rule 262A VerfO to protect sensitive business information from public disclosure. This decision reinforces the robust protection of trade secrets within UPC litigation, mandating confidentiality not only for public access but also for all participants involved in the case.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a case concerning the infringement of EP 4 142 215, Huawei Technologies sought protective measures for its confidential business secrets against MediaTek. The UPC Local Division Munich ruled favorably, classifying specific documents as confidential and imposing strict duties of secrecy on all participants in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the robust protection available under the UPC framework for trade secrets during litigation, ensuring that sensitive information is not disclosed to third parties or the public.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This UPC costs determination case involved the aftermath of a patent infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 225 320. The core dispute centered on the reasonableness and necessity of legal fees claimed by the defendant, EJP Maschinen GmbH, for both the infringement suit and the counterclaim for revocation. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent regarding costs, setting a specific amount payable by the claimant, MSG Maschinenbau GmbH.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This UPC costs decision addressed the allocation of legal fees arising from a complex infringement and revocation action involving EP 3 225 320. The court scrutinized the reasonableness and necessity of the defendant's extensive cost claims, including those related to 'strategic considerations.' Ultimately, the court partially granted the claim for costs, ordering the claimant to pay €33,224.50 to the respondent. A key procedural point was the rejection of interest on awarded costs.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku Inc.
In this UPC case, Sun Patent Trust sued Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. for infringement of EP 2 903 267. The defendants raised significant jurisdictional challenges, arguing that the EPCG was incompatible with EU law (AEUV/EUV). The court decisively rejected these arguments, affirming the UPC's jurisdiction over both current and past acts of alleged infringement. Consequently, the opposition was dismissed, and the main infringement proceedings will proceed.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
BSN Medical GmbH initiated infringement proceedings against Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V. concerning European patents EP 3 831 350 and EP 3 033 058. Rather than proceeding to a full trial, the parties successfully reached an out-of-court settlement agreement. The UPC court confirmed this agreement, ensuring that the sensitive terms of the settlement remain confidential, providing a clear example of how settlements are formalized within the unified patent system.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case, the respondents challenged the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringement acts that occurred before the UPC Agreement came into force. The court decisively rejected this objection, affirming its competence to hear claims concerning pre-UPC period activities. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the temporal scope of the UPC's jurisdiction, providing certainty for claimants pursuing historical infringement claims.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC decision addresses a procedural gap regarding the reimbursement of court fees when an application for interim measures is withdrawn. The Court ruled that despite the strict wording of the Rules of Procedure, the principle allowing fee recovery upon withdrawal could be analogously applied to interim measure applications. This provides clarity and predictability for practitioners dealing with early-stage litigation in the UPC.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC decision concerns a procedural matter where Avago Technologies sought to withdraw its application for interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation regarding EP 1 770 912. The court granted the withdrawal, noting that since the initial order had not been served and the respondent was unaware of the proceedings, no active participation or hearing was required. This ruling underscores the procedural flexibility within the UPC when parties voluntarily terminate actions.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC decision concerns the withdrawal of a counterclaim for invalidity filed by Tesla against Avago Technologies regarding EP 1 770 912. The court granted the request to withdraw, finding that since the action had not reached a final judgment and no legitimate interest was asserted by the claimant, the withdrawal was permissible under UPC Rules. Consequently, the entire proceeding was terminated.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a case involving Avago Technologies against Tesla, the claimant voluntarily withdrew its infringement lawsuit concerning EP 1 770 912. The Munich Local Division of the UPC granted this request, terminating the proceedings without prejudice to future actions. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework regarding claim withdrawal when no party has a vested interest in the outcome.
Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC decision addressed an application for access to court files filed by Harting Electric Stiftung & Co. KG (the applicant) in a case involving infringement and opposition proceedings related to EP 3 602 692. The core dispute was whether the applicant, who is also involved in national litigation concerning derivative utility models, had a right to review evidence from the main UPC infringement suit. The court ultimately granted access, establishing that parties in ongoing opposition proceedings have a legitimate interest in reviewing relevant case materials for proper defense and representation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC case involved Avago seeking provisional measures to halt Realtek's US litigation and the enforcement of German injunctions, arguing that these actions violated fundamental European justice rights. The court initially considered the request but later issued a correction to its order. Crucially, the final ruling allowed the US-based legal proceedings to continue regarding claims other than those related to the alleged license breach, keeping the matter pending.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd
This UPC decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to patent infringement (EP 3 197 316). The Court ruled that despite Rule 370(9)(b) VerfO explicitly referencing 'Klage' (action), it could be analogously applied to provisional measure applications. This ruling fills a regulatory gap, confirming that the incentive structure for early case termination—where fees are partially refunded based on when the application is withdrawn—applies consistently across different types of UPC proceedings.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving infringement and revocation, the central patent (EP 3 225 320 B1) was fully revoked by the EPO Board of Appeal prior to the final hearing. Consequently, the Local Division of Munich allowed the claimant to withdraw its infringement suit and declared the infringement proceedings terminated. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed as moot. This decision highlights how external events, such as patent revocation, can fundamentally alter the trajectory of UPC litigation.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
In this UPC case, i-mop GmbH successfully obtained a default judgment against ARCORA International GmbH regarding the infringement of its floor cleaning device patent (EP 3 760 094). The court found that ARCORA's product infringed the patent claims and granted preliminary relief, including damages and an injunction. Although the case was ultimately concluded due to partial withdrawal by i-mop, the ruling serves as a significant precedent regarding default judgments in UPC infringement proceedings.
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.