LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English
50 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
50 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Amazon.com, Inc. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the rules surrounding the use of private transcripts derived from oral hearing recordings. The court ruled that while a full transcript is not automatically provided by the UPC, parties can obtain one with professional assistance if specific conditions are met. These conditions include clearly labeling the document as non-authoritative and ensuring compliance with all confidentiality and data protection mandates.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involved multiple appeals concerning infringement and international jurisdiction related to a juice extractor patent. The court addressed complex procedural issues regarding how parties establish their choice of forum under Brussels Ia Regulation, while also reviewing the merits of the claims. Ultimately, the appeal decisions were partially set aside, confirming certain jurisdictional limitations but maintaining the financial value of the dispute at €675,000.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. v.Amgen, Inc
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns procedural matters, specifically the withdrawal of applications for rehearing in a complex dispute involving Sanofi and Amgen over patent EP 3 666 797. Following earlier proceedings where the Central Division had revoked the patent, both parties engaged in appeals and subsequent requests for rehearing. Ultimately, the Court permitted the withdrawal of these procedural actions upon consent from all involved parties. This case highlights how UPC courts manage complex litigation pathways when parties agree to terminate specific stages of the legal process.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for applications seeking suspensive effect. The court emphasized that parties must present their full case upfront, meaning subsequent applications based on similar arguments are inadmissible. This ruling reinforces the principle of judicial efficiency and timely disclosure in complex patent litigation.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal concerning provisional measures in a dispute over hair care appliances. The court upheld the injunction against Dreame's products but clarified key legal principles regarding claim construction and the scope of injunctive relief. Specifically, it ruled that infringement risk extends beyond previously committed acts, strengthening the basis for broad interim protection.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson successfully appealed a provisional measures decision against Dreame's hair styling products before the UPC Court of Appeal. The court upheld the injunction and extended its scope to cover newer versions of Dreame's curling attachments, confirming that infringement is sufficient grounds for preventing future unauthorized use. This ruling provides clarity on how courts interpret claim features in relation to physical configurations and reinforces the broad application of provisional measures.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This Court of Appeal decision addresses a complex provisional measures application concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought an injunction against Dreame International and Eurep for infringing EP 3 119 235 with its multi-functional hairdryers. While the court granted the requested provisional measures within the UPC Territory, it simultaneously referred key jurisdictional questions regarding Spain and the role of the authorized representative (Eurep) to the CJEU. This highlights the Court's careful balancing act between immediate injunctive relief and ensuring legal certainty across different EU jurisdictions.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited and Eurep GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involves a complex dispute over provisional measures concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought to prevent infringement by Dreame International and Eurep, who marketed products through websites. The court found jurisdictional questions regarding the role of EU-based intermediaries (Eurep) in facilitating third-state infringement were too complex for it to resolve alone. Consequently, the Court referred key legal questions to the CJEU while simultaneously issuing provisional measures against certain defendants within the UPC Territory.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural request for discretionary review filed by the defendants (Alpinestars) against an order from the Local Division. The core issue was whether the appeal remained necessary after the Local Division subsequently amended its original ruling to grant leave to appeal. The Court ruled that since the first instance proceedings evolved and rendered the appeal obsolete, the request could be withdrawn. This case highlights the dynamic nature of UPC litigation and how procedural developments can impact appellate remedies.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect filed by a defendant against a preliminary injunction and interim damage award issued by the Court of First Instance. The Applicant sought to halt the enforcement of the CFI's orders, arguing that certain actions (like website publication) were irreversible and that the financial impact was severe. However, the Court rejected the request, emphasizing that an appeal must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to override the general rule against suspensive effect.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
In this procedural case, Primetals Technologies sought an order compelling Danieli & C. S.p.A. to produce extensive technical and commercial documentation related to a plant in Vietnam that Primetals alleged infringed EP 2 624 977. The court ultimately rejected the request, finding that Primetals had not provided sufficient or plausible evidence to substantiate its claims of infringement. This decision underscores the high evidentiary threshold required when seeking discovery orders under UPC rules.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application for leave to appeal against a cost determination in a prior infringement action involving Microsoft and Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. The court upheld the CFI's award of EUR 350,000.00 in costs to Microsoft. The ruling emphasizes the strict proportionality requirements under Article 69(1) UPCA when reviewing cost assessments.
Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of an application for rehearing related to EP 2 152 073. Both parties, Sumi Agro and Syngenta, jointly requested the withdrawal, leading the court to permit it under R. 265.1 RoP. While the core dispute was dropped, the Court provided clear guidance on procedural matters, specifically confirming that joint requests for withdrawal waive the need for a cost decision but do not automatically allow for fee waivers.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 3 769 722, the UPC Court of First Instance granted both parties' requests to stay the proceedings. This decision is highly significant as it links the outcome of the UPC litigation directly to the parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Furthermore, the court provisionally established strict confidentiality measures for sensitive documents exchanged between the parties, setting a clear precedent for managing trade secrets within the UPC framework.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co, Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Vivo to stay the ongoing infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance (CFI). Vivo argued that an unprecedented jurisdictional question regarding active FRAND rate determination needed clarification before proceeding. The Court ultimately rejected this request, holding that VIVO did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances required under R. 21.2 RoP. This ruling reinforces the principle that main proceedings generally must continue unless truly extraordinary factors are present.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against a cost award granted in favor of Microsoft Corporation. The original dispute involved an infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173, which was ultimately dismissed by default. Although the costs were substantial (€350k), the Court of Appeal ruled that Suinno failed to meet the high threshold required to suspend enforcement of the cost decision. This reinforces the principle that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are proven.
Washtower IP B.V. v.Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision is a purely procedural order granting an extension of time to the Appellants (defendants from the CFI proceedings). The Appellants requested more time to prepare their grounds of appeal due to professional constraints, including mandatory attendance at an EPO hearing. The Court granted a three-working-day extension, emphasizing the principles of due process while ensuring the Respondents' interests were secured by the enforceability of the original order.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal admitted Apple Inc. as an intervener in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings between Ericsson and ASUS/Arvato. The core issue was whether Apple had sufficient legal interest to participate in appeals concerning the confidentiality regime for sensitive license agreements. The court affirmed that intervention is possible even when the matter relates to interim procedural orders, provided a direct legal interest can be demonstrated. This decision clarifies the scope of 'legal interest' under UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), setting a precedent for how third parties can participate in complex litigation concerning trade secrets and confidential information.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd.
This procedural order concerns Apple's successful application to intervene in an appeal brought by Sun Patent Trust against Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd. The core dispute involved the confidentiality regime applied to highly confidential information (HCI) related to licensing agreements. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, recognizing its direct legal interest in protecting its sensitive business data from disclosure to Vivo's employees. This decision is significant for IP practitioners dealing with complex litigation involving trade secrets and commercial interests within the UPC framework.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application by Apple Inc. to intervene in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings between Ericsson and ASUS/Arvato. The court ruled that Apple possessed a legal interest, allowing its admission as an intervener supporting Ericsson's request for a stricter 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the scope of intervention under UPC Rules of Procedure, confirming that interests in interim orders are sufficient grounds for participation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd.
This procedural order concerns Apple Inc.'s successful application to intervene in an appeal brought by Sun Patent Trust against Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd. The core dispute involved the scope of confidentiality regarding highly confidential information (HCI) related to licensing agreements. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple, recognizing its direct legal interest in preventing the disclosure of its sensitive business data to VIVO employees. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms available for third parties whose interests are affected by ongoing litigation.
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.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This UPC decision addressed a request for rectification concerning the allocation of legal costs following a complex merits judgment. The Claimant, Edwards Lifesciences, had achieved partial success—upholding the patent as amended while finding infringement and invalidity. The Defendants argued that the original cost order was incomplete, failing to allocate 25% of their own costs. The Court firmly rejected this argument, confirming that the initial decision provided a fair and equitable distribution of costs under Article 69 UPCA.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
Edwards Lifesciences successfully sued Meril Life Sciences and associated entities for infringing its patent EP 3 769 722, which covers a low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valves (TAVI). The UPC Court of First Instance found that the defendants' products literally infringe the patented technology. This decision is significant as it reinforces the enforceability of specialized medical device patents within the unified patent court framework, particularly in complex TAVI applications.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of an appeal against a security for costs order. Chint appealed the Local Division's ruling, arguing that the order was legally flawed. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal entirely, not on the merits of the security requirement itself, but because the initial case management order did not meet the procedural requirements for appeal under UPC rules. This reinforces strict adherence to internal appellate procedures within the UPC.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an infringement action concerning solar cell technology. The court ultimately granted the application, requiring the claimant (JingAo) to provide a deposit of € 200,000. The ruling emphasizes that while enforcement difficulties exist in non-EU jurisdictions like China, these do not automatically defeat the need for security; rather, the applicant must demonstrate legitimate concerns regarding enforceability.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural requirements surrounding appeals in revocation actions. It clarifies that a separate court fee is due for an appeal against the main revocation action and any counterclaim for revocation, regardless of how the CFI combines its decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal fees to both parties following the mutual withdrawal of the underlying actions, setting important precedents on procedural costs.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural aspects of a revocation action and its associated counterclaim for revocation. The parties mutually agreed to withdraw both actions, leading to the closure of the proceedings. Crucially, the court clarified that appeals against these two distinct actions require separate court fees, regardless of how the CFI combined the decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal costs based on specific procedural rules.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This decision addresses a critical procedural dispute regarding the protection of confidential information in UPC proceedings involving potential antitrust conflicts. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing data from disclosure to defendants. The Panel ruled that while such regimes are theoretically possible under EU law principles, the Claimant failed to meet the strict burden of proof required by the UPC for demonstrating a concrete risk of anticompetitive harm. Consequently, the application was dismissed, but leave to appeal was granted, setting up an important precedent for future cases balancing IP protection and competition concerns.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the scope of confidentiality protection in patent litigation. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' regime for sensitive licensing data, arguing it was necessary to prevent antitrust conflicts. The Panel rejected this request, emphasizing that such exceptional restrictions require a high burden of proof showing concrete risks of anticompetitive harm. Although the application for review was dismissed, leave to appeal was granted, setting up a potential precedent on balancing confidentiality and competition law within the UPC.
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.