Lopes
31 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
31 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; Zentiva Portugal, LDA
This UPC decision addressed a request for public access to documents from a prior preliminary injunction case involving Boehringer and Zentiva. The Court ruled that while proceedings are generally open to the public, this principle must be balanced against the parties' need to protect sensitive commercial and personal information. Consequently, the Applicant was granted access to the requested pleadings, but only in redacted versions provided by the respondents.
beMatrix NV. v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a rectification of an earlier provisional measures order in the dispute between beMatrix NV. and Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. The original application sought preliminary injunctions against alleged infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1, which covers display modules for temporary exhibition stands. The Court ultimately corrected a clerical error in its prior ruling, ensuring that the Defendant was properly ordered to cease and desist from infringing the patent. This highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting administrative or drafting errors.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the critical issue of service of process against a defendant based in China. Despite formal attempts via Chinese authorities failing, and subsequent email contact being ignored, the Court invoked the principle of effective judicial protection. It ruled that publishing the provisional measures order on the UPC website constituted valid good service, allowing the proceedings to continue without further delay.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of service of process in a UPC provisional measures case involving parties across different jurisdictions, specifically China. The Court found that traditional methods of serving Defendant 2 were ineffective and unduly delayed. By invoking the principle of effective judicial protection, the Düsseldorf Local Division declared that publishing the preliminary injunction on the UPC website constituted valid good service. This ruling provides significant guidance for practitioners dealing with cross-border litigation where formal service is impractical.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures and a preliminary injunction against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The case, filed under R. 206 RoP, targeted counterfeit printer cartridges (types 924 and 937) sold by both German and Chinese defendants. Crucially, the court also imposed significant penalty payments on the Chinese defendant to enforce compliance with the provisional measures, demonstrating a strong enforcement stance in UPC proceedings.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard sought preliminary injunctions against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic regarding its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). Although the court dismissed the application for provisional measures in most aspects, it issued a highly specific order. This ruling forces the defendant to disclose detailed information about the origin and distribution of infringing products, backed by severe daily penalty payments if they fail to comply.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda.
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC confirmed its exclusive jurisdiction over a pharmaceutical patent infringement case involving nintedanib. The Defendant attempted to challenge the Court's competence by arguing that the dispute was administrative, stemming from a national health authority's communication. However, the UPC rejected this objection, clarifying that the core issue is a private enforcement action based on the threat of infringement, not an administrative review. This decision allows the case to proceed to the substantive merits phase.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
In a critical procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the challenges of serving foreign defendants in urgent UPC proceedings. The court ruled that if formal service attempts via international conventions stall or fail, and all other reasonable efforts have been exhausted, the steps taken by the applicant can be deemed sufficient for proper legal notice under Rule 275.2 RoP. This decision provides significant procedural relief to applicants facing unresponsive foreign jurisdictions in high-stakes IP litigation.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.
In a significant ruling for the plastics industry, the UPC Local Division of Paris dismissed Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll's infringement action against the First group. The case centered on the 'Connecto®invisible' hydraulic gutter grille technology (EP3272938). Despite detailed claims regarding manufacturing and offering infringing products, the court found no evidence of literal or equivalent infringement. Furthermore, RPN was ordered to cover the respondents' legal costs provisionally.
Amycel LLC v.PL
In a default judgment case concerning mushroom strains, the UPC confirmed infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2 held by Amycel LLC. The court specifically addressed patentability issues, ruling that the subject matter (a specific mushroom strain) is not excluded from protection under Art. 53(b) EPC. This decision reinforces the enforceability of plant-related patents within the UPC territory and confirms significant remedies, including permanent injunctions and interim damages.
AX Wireless, LLC v.Xiaomi Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a request by the defendants to align and extend key deadlines in the case against AX Wireless, LLC. The court found that harmonizing the timelines for all parties, including those served internationally, would significantly improve case management efficiency. This decision underscores the Court's focus on practical, efficient procedural handling while respecting statutory requirements.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding alleged infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The court granted a preliminary injunction and imposed significant penalty payments, demonstrating the immediate enforcement power available under the UPC system for interim relief. This case underscores the importance of timely action when seeking protection against counterfeit or infringing components in the fast-moving printer cartridge market.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures against a Chinese defendant, the court addressed the critical issue of service failure under international conventions. Despite official notification from Chinese authorities that the company did not exist at the provided address, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted the applicant's request. The ruling established that if the applicant provides credible evidence verifying the accuracy of the registered address, prior attempts can be deemed good service, ensuring the applicant's urgent legal rights are protected.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard Development Company sought provisional measures against two defendants regarding the alleged infringement of its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). The Düsseldorf Local Division granted certain provisional orders, notably imposing significant penalty payments on Defendant 2 for manufacturing or importing infringing devices. This decision underscores the UPC's ability to swiftly enforce rights through interim measures while maintaining flexibility regarding subsequent merits proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the defendants reached a comprehensive settlement in their UPC infringement and revocation proceedings concerning the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis EP 2628464. The Court confirmed this agreement, effectively closing the case while granting confidentiality to sensitive terms of the deal. This decision highlights how parties can utilize Art. 79 UPCA to resolve complex patent disputes without a full judicial determination on validity or infringement.
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.
Genentech Inc. v.F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG, Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division granted an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection in the dispute concerning EP 3 401 335 B1. The case involves Genentech/Roche against Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech regarding biosimilars of the cancer drug Perjeta®. This decision allows the Applicants to secure critical information necessary for their claims, highlighting the UPC's proactive role in managing complex pharmaceutical litigation.
Genentech Inc. v.F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG, Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
In this significant pharmaceutical dispute, Genentech and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG sought urgent procedural measures against Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc. The UPC Local Division granted both an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection concerning the patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers the cancer medicine Perjeta®. This decision is a critical step in securing necessary data for the ongoing litigation regarding biosimilar launch (HLX11).
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division case involved a complex situation where an infringement action and associated revocation counterclaims were partially withdrawn due to one defendant's insolvency. The Court allowed the withdrawal against the insolvent party (Digital River) but maintained the proceedings against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato). Crucially, the court applied principles of fairness and equity, ruling that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs related to these withdrawals, despite conflicting claims.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division decision addressed procedural matters concerning an ongoing infringement and revocation action involving Ericsson. Due to Digital River's insolvency, Ericsson sought to withdraw its claim against that defendant, which was subsequently allowed. The Court ruled on the allocation of costs for these withdrawal proceedings, finding that equity dictated both parties bear their own expenses, despite initial disagreement.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application by Fujifilm Corporation seeking to overturn a previous decision that denied them permission for a further written submission. The dispute centered on the right of prior use defense raised by Kodak entities. The UPC Panel dismissed the request, emphasizing that strict adherence to procedural timelines is crucial in complex patent litigation. This ruling reinforces the principle that parties must manage their filing deadlines carefully to avoid unnecessary delays in proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
In this procedural order, the UPC denied a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor) seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in ongoing infringement and counterclaim proceedings. The Court held that while transparency is important, the integrity of the private dispute must be protected until the case concludes. This decision reinforces the principle that requests for public access must be highly specific and demonstrate a direct, plausible interest related to the patent's subject matter.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addressed a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor) seeking access to confidential pleadings and evidence in several UPC cases. The Court ultimately denied this access, emphasizing that while transparency is important, the integrity of ongoing civil litigation must be protected. The ruling clarified that merely being a competitor or investor is insufficient grounds for disclosure when the core patent information is already public.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addressed a request by an applicant (a medical device investor/competitor) seeking broad access to the court's pleadings and evidence in ongoing UPC infringement cases. The Court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that the integrity of private civil litigation must be protected until proceedings conclude. The ruling reinforces the high bar for applicants seeking public disclosure of case materials, requiring a concrete and legitimate interest beyond general competitive curiosity.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
In this procedural order, the UPC denied a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor in medical devices) seeking broad access to all pleadings and evidence across multiple related infringement and counterclaim actions. The Court emphasized that while transparency is vital, the integrity of ongoing civil litigation must be protected from external interference. Since the core patent descriptions are already public, the court found no compelling reason for granting wide-ranging access at this stage.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addressed a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor) seeking broad access to pleadings and evidence in ongoing UPC infringement cases. The Court denied this access, emphasizing that the integrity of private civil litigation must be protected until proceedings conclude. While denying the immediate request, the Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing the importance of clarifying the legal interpretation regarding public access under RoP 262.1(b).
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
Ericsson successfully sought leave to amend its preliminary injunction application in the UPC, specifically adjusting the scope of liability concerning Arvato's role as a service intermediary. The Court granted this amendment, allowing Ericsson to proceed with direct infringement claims against ASUSTek and Digital River Ireland while limiting Arvato's liability under Article 62(1) UPCA. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex supply chain litigation by allowing claimants to refine their legal theories based on factual developments.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addresses the resumption of a complex infringement and revocation action after the UPC proceedings were stayed pending a decision from the EPO Boards of Appeal (TBA). The Court established a tailored timetable, granting the claimant 14 days to file an amended statement of claim and the defendants 42 days to respond with their amended defense and counterclaim for revocation. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines when external decisions significantly alter the scope of the patent-in-suit.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (unnamed)
Amycel LLC successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC CFI regarding its patent on a hybrid mushroom strain (BR06). The court granted an interim injunction against the unnamed defendant to prevent infringement in key territories, provided Amycel deposited EUR 200,000.00 as security. This decision reinforces the enforceability of plant/microorganism patents within the UPC framework and provides immediate relief for biotech innovators.
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.