Kokke
35 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
35 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. Et al.
This UPC decision confirms the closure of a complex dispute between Adeia Guides Inc. and The Walt Disney Company following a settlement agreement. Although the core patent issues were resolved outside of court, the Court provided specific rulings on procedural matters, particularly concerning the withdrawal of actions and the reimbursement of court fees. This case highlights how settlements are formally processed within the UPC framework.
Amycel LLC v.Spyra
This UPC decision addressed an application by the Defendant (Spyra) to set aside a prior default judgment in an infringement action against Amycel LLC. The Court dismissed the R.356 application, finding that the procedural requirements for setting aside the default were not met due to earlier notices provided to the Defendant. Crucially, the Court also rectified the original Default-Decision, replacing the reference to Rule 356 with clear instructions on how and when an appeal could be lodged at the Court of Appeal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
In a provisional measures case concerning CGM technology, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought relief against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the patent EP3988471. While the Court ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, it issued a significant ruling on costs. The Court found that despite the dismissal, Abbott must pay an interim award of EUR 400,000 to the Defendants to cover their legal expenses. This decision highlights the UPC's strict approach to cost allocation in preliminary proceedings, emphasizing the principle of proper and fair administration of justice even when the main application fails.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the alleged infringement of its CGM sensor assembly patent (EP4344633). The UPC Local Division granted a significant injunction, ordering the defendants to cease certain activities and provide detailed information on their product's origin and distribution channels within the UPC territory. While the Court did not rule definitively on the merits of infringement, this order provides Abbott with immediate leverage by restricting market access for the accused products.
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.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning retail merchandising technology, the UPC found that HL Display AB's patent covering systems for securing shelf accessories was validly infringed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s products. While granting the infringement claim and ordering substantial damages, the court also issued a key procedural holding: counterclaims seeking a declaration of non-infringement are inadmissible if the claimant has not previously asserted the patent against that specific product. This decision reinforces strict adherence to assertion requirements within UPC proceedings.
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.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. sought provisional measures against several defendants regarding the infringement of its washing machine cabinet patent (EP3522755B1). Although the court did not grant the full scope of preliminary relief requested by Washtower, it issued a significant interim award for legal costs totaling EUR 62,600. This decision highlights how UPC proceedings can yield financial benefits even when primary injunctive or declaratory relief is not immediately granted.
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.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. sought provisional measures against several defendants regarding the patent EP3522755B1 covering ergonomic washing machine cabinets. The court issued an order on September 11, 2025, focusing primarily on costs and interim relief. Although the application for preliminary measures was partially addressed, the ruling established a significant cost award of EUR 62,600 against Defendants 2-5.
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.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Sintec S.R.L.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Sintec S.R.L./Value Med S.R.L., concluding an earlier application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 646 825 B1. While the settlement itself was confirmed, the Court rejected Edwards' request to reimburse court fees based on a misapplication of procedural rules. This case highlights the finality and binding nature of settlements within the UPC framework.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This UPC decision between Winnow Solutions Limited and Orbisk B.V. concerns the infringement of EP 3198245, a patent covering systems for monitoring food waste in commercial kitchens. The Court of First Instance delivered a detailed ruling on the merits, addressing both infringement claims and procedural applications. Notably, the court imposed significant cost obligations on Winnow Solutions Limited while also providing guidance on cost allocation in cases involving partial revocation.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This UPC decision between Winnow Solutions Limited and Orbisk B.V. addresses the infringement of EP 3198245, a patent covering food waste monitoring systems. The court provided detailed rulings on cost allocation in complex litigation scenarios involving partial revocation. The judgment is significant for practitioners as it clarifies the financial consequences when a patent's validity is only challenged or upheld partially.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
In a significant decision, the Munich Local Court dismissed Tiroler Rohre GmbH's infringement claim against SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH regarding driving tips (ram spikes). The court accepted the defendants' technical arguments, specifically that the alleged 'ledge' was not free-standing and that the contact surface was not flat as required by the patent claims. This ruling underscores the importance of precise claim construction in UPC litigation, particularly when dealing with functional or structural limitations.
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.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a procedural application concerning public access to court documents in the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_135/2024). The claimant sought extensive access to all filed exhibits and pleadings. The Court partially granted this request, allowing access to specific redacted versions of key documents while rejecting broader requests for further redaction or disclosure.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S Machinery B.V.
This procedural order addressed the scope of access to an expert's report following a seizure of documents related to alleged patent infringement (EP4171996). The Court balanced the need for the claimant to assess its case against the defendant's interests in confidentiality. By finding that the Defendant had not raised objections and the information was limited, the UPC granted access to specific employees of the claimant, allowing them to evaluate potential infringement and determine next steps.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
This UPC order addresses procedural rectifications requested by Meril GmbH in the infringement case concerning Edwards Lifesciences' heart valve patent (EP 3 646 825). The defendants sought corrections to technical descriptions, jurisdictional statements, and references to prior art/expert opinions within the original decision. The court accepted several of these amendments, ensuring accuracy in the record while maintaining the ongoing nature of the dispute.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal of all claims in the case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom International Limited regarding patent EP4070727. Both parties mutually consented to drop their infringement and revocation actions. The court subsequently declared the proceedings closed, setting the value of the cases at EUR 4 million.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal of all claims in the case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc. Both parties mutually consented to drop their infringement claim and counterclaims for revocation regarding EP4070727. The court formally closed the proceedings, noting that no cost decision was required.
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.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the timing of patent amendments during infringement proceedings. The court examined an application by President and Fellows of Harvard College to amend its patent based on developments in parallel EPO opposition proceedings. While the initial amendment request was rejected, the court allowed an appeal because the question of when subsequent amendments can be filed under Rule 30.2 VerfO has broad significance for UPC practice. This case highlights the strict procedural requirements governing changes to patent claims mid-litigation.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (unnamed)
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of service of process in a UPC infringement action. The court ruled that despite initial difficulties and subsequent refusal by the Defendant to accept documents, Amycel's alternative methods of delivery qualified as 'good service.' This ruling establishes a clear precedent for how parties can successfully effect service when standard procedures fail, provided efficiency and fairness are maintained.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH; SSAB Europe Oy
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures, Tiroler Rohre GmbH sought an interim injunction against SSAB entities. After a hearing, the claimant withdrew its application. The court subsequently dismissed the request and ruled that since the withdrawal did not prevent future proceedings, there was no legitimate interest for the respondents to have a decision on the matter. Consequently, the claimant was ordered to cover all procedural costs.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB initiated an infringement lawsuit against Optoma Corporation and its subsidiaries regarding EP 3 605 534. However, before a substantive ruling could be made, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf formally approved the withdrawal of the claim. This case highlights how settlements can resolve complex patent disputes within the UPC framework, allowing for procedural closure while addressing financial aspects like court fee reimbursement.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. initiated an infringement lawsuit against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning EP 3 339 920 B1. However, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently filed a request to withdraw the claim. The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal, formally ending the proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can lead to the dismissal of UPC infringement actions.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. initiated an infringement lawsuit against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning the patent EP 2 402 415 B1. However, before a full hearing could take place, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently agreed to withdraw the claim. The Düsseldorf Local Division formally accepted this withdrawal, terminating the case.
Unnamed individual residing in Belgium v.OrthoApnea S.L.
This UPC Local Division Brussels order addressed a procedural challenge brought by OrthoApnea S.L. against an earlier interim decision concerning claim amendments and deadlines in an infringement action related to EP 2 331 036. The court rejected the request for partial review, upholding the Judge-Rapporteur's initial ruling that allowed certain procedural adjustments while maintaining strict control over the case timeline. This highlights the UPC's rigorous approach to managing complex litigation and limiting opportunities for extensive procedural delays.
Individual (unnamed) v.OrthoApnea S.L.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Brussels addressed an objection raised by OrthoApnea S.L. against the claimant's ability to amend their infringement case. The court rejected the respondents' attempt to block the addition of new facts and arguments based on equivalence. This decision reinforces that while initial pleadings are crucial, the procedural rules allow for necessary adjustments during litigation, provided they maintain coherence with the ongoing 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.