Kupecz
27 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
27 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l.
In a case involving F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the claimants to withdraw their infringement action concerning EP 1 962 668. This withdrawal was based on an out-of-court settlement reached between the parties, which stipulated that each party would bear its own costs. The court confirmed the termination of proceedings and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees for Roche.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This UPC decision, delivered by the Düsseldorf Local Chamber, addressed a complex infringement case concerning milk frothing technology. While the claimant sought an injunction and damages for patent infringement (EP 3 398 487 B1), the court ultimately dismissed the main claim. Crucially, the judgment provided important guidance on remedies, specifically clarifying that advertising materials are exempt from mandatory destruction under Art. 64(2)(e) UPC Agreement because they do not constitute 'relevant materials' used in production.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim found IPG Laser GmbH liable for infringing TRUMPF Laser UK Limited's patent covering advanced fiber laser technology with adjustable beam profiles (YLS-AMB series). The court granted an injunction and established liability for damages dating back to December 2021. While the infringement claim was successful, the respondent's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
In this UPC decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for an ex-parte order concerning the inspection and preservation of evidence related to robot localization technology. The court ultimately revoked the existing provisional measure because the applicant's submission was deemed incomplete and misleading regarding the core facts. This ruling serves as a strong warning to applicants seeking urgent interim relief that procedural integrity is paramount, especially when relying on ex-parte proceedings.
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.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.
In this UPC case concerning egg packaging technology (EP 2 755 901 B1), Hartmann Packaging A/S sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH for infringement and simultaneously filed a revocation counterclaim. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent rights. Crucially, the court also rejected the revocation counterclaim, affirming the validity of the patent while providing important guidance on interpreting 'the same invention' under Article 87 EPC.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handels GmbH (and Johann Windhager, Stefan Windhager)
This UPC decision addresses a complex infringement case involving interlocking metal strips used for garden edging. The court issued significant legal guidance, establishing that merely offering or supplying components designed to assemble easily constitutes direct patent infringement. While the claimant secured an injunction and damages against the main defendant, the overall infringement claim was partially dismissed, highlighting the nuanced application of component supply rules in UPC litigation.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
Ecovacs Robotics sought provisional measures—specifically an inspection and evidence preservation order—against Roborock (HK) in the UPC, alleging infringement of its robot localization patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The claimant argued that Roborock's vacuum cleaners utilized the patented technology. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain urgent evidence preservation orders in UPC proceedings.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
In this UPC case concerning an infringement action involving EP 1 998 686 B2, the court addressed a motion regarding the protection of confidential information. The Lokalkammer Düsseldorf granted the request to classify specific data as trade secrets under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262A VerfO. Crucially, the court ruled that the claimant's CEO must be granted access to this sensitive information, despite objections from the defendants who feared competitive disadvantage.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the costs allocation in a provisional measures proceeding concerning EP 4 001 835. The core dispute involved whether the application was moot and who should bear the legal costs, particularly regarding Respondent No. 2 (Blankenhorn GmbH). Although the claimant sought to impose costs on Respondent No. 2 due to lack of formal warning, the court found that since both parties agreed the matter was settled, the proceedings were terminated. The court ultimately upheld the imposition of costs on Respondent No. 2 based on principles of equity.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for provisional measures related to EP 1 998 686 B1. Although the core issue is infringement, the respondents raised challenges regarding the patent's validity. The court ruled that given these dual issues—infringement and invalidity—it was appropriate to enhance the judicial panel by appointing an additional technically qualified judge. This proactive step ensures early expert involvement in complex medical technology cases.
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.
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.
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.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA
This procedural order in the Belparts v. IMI Hydronic case confirms the court's decision to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation simultaneously, despite potential conflicts between arguments presented in different proceedings. The UPC Local Division Munich set specific dates for future hearings, including an interim videoconference and a full oral hearing scheduled for June 2026. This order highlights the procedural flexibility of the UPC while managing complex litigation strategies involving multiple claims.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This UPC decision confirms the termination of a patent infringement and revocation counterclaim between Hand Held Products, Inc. and Scandit AG following an out-of-court settlement. The claimant successfully withdrew its infringement suit, while the respondents consented to dropping their revocation counterclaim. Crucially, the court formalized the cost allocation, ordering both parties to receive a 60% refund of their respective legal fees.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
In this UPC case involving packaging technology, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued an order setting out the procedural path forward for both infringement and revocation claims. The court decided to combine the two actions into a single proceeding, citing efficiency and the benefit of a unified interpretation by the same judicial panel. This decision streamlines complex patent litigation, allowing claimants and defendants to address validity and infringement simultaneously.
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.
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.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung), the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf decided to consolidate the proceedings between Grundfos Holding A/S and Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court ruled that it would jointly examine both the infringement claim brought by Grundfos and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu. This decision aims to enhance procedural efficiency, ensuring a unified legal interpretation across both claims.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a procedural dispute regarding the submission of pleadings in an infringement case. The respondents sought extensions for their reply and rejoinder, citing redacted documents from the claimant's initial filing. However, the court rejected these requests, establishing a strict rule that placeholders via redactions are procedurally unacceptable. This ruling emphasizes the importance of full transparency and timely disclosure of all arguments to ensure a fair defense process in UPC litigation.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
In this UPC case concerning infringement of EP4074373, the Local Division decided to refer the revocation counterclaim and the claimant's request for patent amendment to the Central Division in Paris. This decision was based on procedural efficiency, as the core arguments against the patent were already being litigated in a prior central action initiated by one of the defendants. The court ruled that maintaining parallel proceedings would violate the principle of process economy.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A VerfO in an infringement case involving OPPO and Panasonic. The court confirmed that the information was indeed confidential but modified the scope of access and rejected the demand for document destruction post-trial. This ruling provides clarity on balancing the need for secrecy with the practical requirements of litigation, particularly regarding permissible access by legal representatives.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this UPC case concerning nucleic acid detection technology, 10x Genomics sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an injunction, confirming the validity and scope of EP 2 697 391 B1. However, the court imposed strict conditions for enforcement, requiring 10x Genomics to post a substantial security deposit of EUR 2 million. This decision highlights the high threshold required for obtaining provisional relief in UPC infringement cases.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this provisional measures case, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf examined a dispute over EP 2 697 391 B1, which covers methods for localized nucleic acid detection. Although the Applicant (10x Genomics) sought various remedies, including costs security and injunctions, the court largely rejected these requests. The final order is highly conditional: while provisional cost reimbursement was ordered, enforcement of any measures requires the Applicant to first deposit EUR 2 million with the Defendant.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order in the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) addresses a request by both parties to change the language of the ongoing infringement case. The claimant, 10x Genomics, Inc., initiated proceedings against Curio Bioscience Inc. regarding EP 2 697 391 B1. Both parties mutually agreed to switch the procedural language from German to English, which the court subsequently approved.
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.