Lopes
24 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
24 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Gowling WLG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from preliminary injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_41/2025) between Boehringer Ingelheim and Zentiva Portugal, in which a final order had been issued on 8 May 2025. While Boehringer did not object (subject to confidentiality redactions), Zentiva opposed the request, arguing the main action was still pending and that the request was overly broad. The Lisbon Local Division granted access to the specifically identified pleadings in their redacted versions but dismissed the request for access to the exhibits, finding the evidence request insufficiently substantiated.
beMatrix NV v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
beMatrix NV, the proprietor of European Patent No. 3 757 442 B1 concerning a display module for temporary exhibition stands, applied for provisional measures against Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division, alleging that Yaham's "Sytaq RA" modular LED display system infringed the patent. After Yaham's CEO declined to cooperate when approached at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, the court granted the preliminary injunction ex parte. The court subsequently issued a rectification order on the same day to correct a clerical error that had mistakenly named the Applicant instead of the Defendant in the operative paragraph.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the service of a preliminary injunction order dated 19 December 2025 on Defendant 2, Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese-based company. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, along with notification via email to Defendant 2's Amazon seller profile address, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, with service deemed effective as of 2 February 2026.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.1.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., 2. Andreas Rentmeister e.K.;
This procedural order concerns the service of a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. The Applicant, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., had sought provisional measures against the Defendants, but service on the China-based Defendant 1. proved impossible through the Chinese Central Authority, which certified that no such company existed at the address provided. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, with the names of the parties and file number, constitutes good service on Defendant 1. pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. a. o.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. sought provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, a patent relating to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants, with Defendant 1 having reached a settlement and not defending against most motions, and Defendant 2 having failed to file any objection despite being served through the Chinese Central Authority.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants after Defendant 1 failed to lodge an objection within the prescribed time period, while Defendant 2's objection was considered on the merits. The court ordered both defendants to cease infringement, with additional information and penalty payment orders against Defendant 1.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed a patent infringement action against Zentiva Portugal before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), based on a threat of infringement following an INFARMED communication. Zentiva raised a preliminary objection arguing the UPC lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved an administrative matter falling under Portuguese administrative courts. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC has exclusive competence over European patent infringement actions and that the dispute between two private parties did not concern an administrative matter.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.
« 2. the applicant’s assertions during the grant procedings […] can be seen as an indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date ». Mais en l’occurrence, le déposant a tiré les conséquences de ses déclarations et les a mises en œuvre en amendant sa demande de brevet, afin d’échapper au grief d’absence de nouveauté, ce qui démontre que RPN considérait bien lui-même à cette époque, que les deux parois parallèles du brevet US628 étaient nécessaires pour espacer les
Amycel LLC v.XXX
This is a decision by default issued by the Local Division The Hague in an infringement action brought by Amycel LLC, proprietor of EP 1 993 350 B2 relating to 'Brown mushrooms for commercial production,' against a defendant referred to as 'PL.' The defendant failed to file its Statement of Defence in time after a Rule 275 order, resulting in a default judgment. The court confirmed the orders previously given in the related provisional measures proceedings, held that the mushroom strain at issue is not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC, found infringement, and granted measures insofar as they were deemed lawful, reasonable, and sufficiently founded.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, which relates to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. Defendant 1 reached a settlement with HP and agreed not to defend against the main motions, while service to Defendant 2 in China had not been completed. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order by default against Defendant 1, granting the preliminary injunction, information orders, and penalty payments, while reserving decision on costs and the application against Defendant 2.
AX Wireless, LLC v.1) Xiaomi Inc. 2) Xiaomi Corporation 3) Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH 4) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
AX Wireless, LLC filed a patent infringement action against four Xiaomi entities before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3072324. The Defendants requested an extension and alignment of procedural deadlines for all four Defendants so that a consolidated defence could be filed, and the Claimant consented. The Court granted the request, aligning the deadlines for all Defendants.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. a. o.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. and Andreas Rentmeister e.K. for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. When service via the Chinese Central Authority under the Hague Convention failed after three and a half months—with Chinese authorities claiming the defendant did not exist at the provided address—the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Respondent
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' While service to the China-based Defendant 1 was not completed, the Germany-based Defendant 2 was served but failed to lodge a substantiated objection within the time period set by the Court. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the provisional measures against Defendant 2 by regular order, ordering cessation of infringing activities, provision of information, and imposing penalty payments for non-compliance.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against Meril Lifesciences and related entities concerning European Patent EP 2 628 464 B1 relating to the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis Myval™ THV. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and proceedings were stayed pending the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal decision, which upheld the patent in amended form. The parties subsequently reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm the settlement agreement by decision, along with partial reimbursement of court fees.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
This case concerns Ericsson's application for panel review of a decision by the Judge Rapporteur rejecting its request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing information submitted in connection with a patent infringement action involving EP 2727242. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding that Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence demonstrating an actual risk of antitrust violations from disclosure to a single Asustek employee. However, the Panel granted Ericsson leave to appeal in order to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Genentech INC., F.Hoffmann – La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shangai Henlius Biotech INC
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (the proprietors of EP 3 401 335 B1, relating to pharmaceutical formulations of HER2 antibodies used in Perjeta®) applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection against Organon entities and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc., who are preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to inspect the defendants' premises and preserve evidence of alleged patent infringement, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the evidence obtained.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
This case before the Milan Local Division concerned the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving patent EP3076673 against Digital River Ireland Ltd. following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland. Both Ericsson and Digital River agreed to mutual withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, but disagreed on costs. The Court allowed the withdrawals, ordered the main proceedings to continue against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato), and held that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's application under Rule 333 RoP to review and set aside a prior order by the Judge-Rapporteur that had rejected FUJIFILM's request to submit a further written pleading in response to new prior use allegations raised by the Kodak defendants in their Rejoinder. The Panel found the request for review admissible but dismissed it on the merits, holding that the Judge-Rapporteur had correctly balanced the risk of delay against the Claimant's interest in further written submissions.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an unnamed applicant's request under Rule 262.1(b) for access to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation as claimant and Meril Lifesciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB as defendants, relating to European Patent EP2628464. The applicant claimed to be a board member and investor in a medical device company in the cardiac implant technology field, seeking access as a competitor concerned about the patent's validity. Edwards Lifesciences opposed the request, arguing it lacked a concrete, verifiable, and legitimate reason, and referenced prior decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi-Aventis and Ocado v. AutoStore. The order addresses the principles of public access under Article 45 UPCA and the requirements for granting access under Rule 262.1(b).
Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns Ericsson's application to amend its claims in preliminary injunction proceedings against ASUSTek, Arvato Netherlands, and Digital River Ireland regarding European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1. The amendment unconditionally limited the original claims, particularly recharacterizing Defendant Arvato from a direct infringer under Article 25(a) UPCA to an intermediary under Article 62(1) UPCA. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Lisbon Local Division) granted the amendment under Rule 263.3 RoP, as the defendants did not oppose the changes and the amendments narrowed the scope of the original claims.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
1 Nordic-Baltic - regional division UPC_CFI_8/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/08/2024 APPLICANT/CLAMIMANT 1) Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Applicant) - One Edwards Way - 92614 - Irvine, California - US Represented b
Amycel LLC v.***
Amycel LLC filed an application for provisional measures alleging that the Defendant infringed its European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 by selling a brown mushroom strain under the name 'Cayene'. The Defendant raised invalidity arguments, contending that the mushroom strain was excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC. The Court of First Instance, Local Division The Hague, rejected the exclusion argument, found infringement, and granted the provisional measures sought.
Spyra Szymon Spyra v.Respondent
The Defendant in main proceedings, Szymon Spyra, a Polish national and natural person whose professional activity relates to mushroom production, requested court-provided simultaneous interpretation between English and Polish for an upcoming oral hearing in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning EP1993350. Amycel LLC, the Applicant in the main action and patent proprietor, opposed the request, arguing that interpretation costs would become costs of the proceedings and that the Defendant could instead engage an interpreter at his own expense. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request under R. 109.1 RoP for court-provided interpretation but granted the request under R. 109.4 RoP, allowing the Defendant to arrange interpretation at his own expense in consultation with the Registry.
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.