of the Court of
141 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
141 cases indexed | Page 3 of 5
Meril GmbH v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent 1 (Helsingborg)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues, specifically concerning public access to the register and the rules governing representation in court. The court established that an individual holding a high-level management position within a party cannot simultaneously act as their authorized representative before the UPC. Additionally, it firmly ruled against awarding compensation for costs related to requests for public access to pleadings, setting clear boundaries on procedural expenses.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for provisional measures in an infringement case involving insulin pump technology. Insulet sought disclosure and injunctions against EOFlow regarding the alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327. While settlement discussions occurred, the court issued a detailed order setting out specific requests, including mandatory disclosure of origin and distribution channels from EOFlow, backed by significant periodic penalty payments for non-compliance. The ruling reinforces core legal principles governing claim construction and cost allocation within the UPC framework.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
In a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990, the UPC Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs. This decision was based on the accelerated timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. The ruling highlights the practical mechanism for coordinating litigation between the UPC and national/EPO bodies when decisions are expected rapidly.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court granted a stay of revocation proceedings following an appeal by Juul Labs against a prior finding. The request was based on parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal which had been accelerated. Given that the EPO proceedings were expected to conclude rapidly relative to the scheduled UPC hearing, the court ruled in favor of granting the stay, allowing both parties to await the final outcome at the EPO.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this appeal action for revocation, the UPC Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings upon request by Juul Labs International, Inc., pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO Boards of Appeal. The court determined that since the EPO proceedings were accelerated and expected to conclude rapidly relative to the UPC's hearing schedule, staying the appeal was appropriate under R. 295(a) RoP. This decision highlights the practical mechanism for managing concurrent litigation between the Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Office.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed Meril's application for suspensive effect against a preliminary infringement judgment issued by the Munich Local Division. Edwards, the patent holder, had secured an injunction prohibiting the sale and use of specific prosthetic heart valve systems. Meril argued that the initial decision was erroneous and requested a stay of enforcement. The Court ultimately rejected this request, affirming the principle that UPC decisions are generally enforceable while appeals are pending.
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.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED, Novartis AG, ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope of public access to court documents, specifically written pleadings and evidence. Stadapharm appealed a lower court's denial of access to documents from a withdrawn main infringement proceeding. The Court ultimately granted access, emphasizing that once proceedings are concluded and parties consent or do not object, the general interest in public access prevails. This ruling provides clarity on how confidentiality concerns must be balanced against transparency requirements within the UPC framework.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
In a recent procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate the infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL against Google entities with the counterclaim for revocation. This strategic decision was made at the request and consent of both parties. By combining these two complex issues into one hearing, the court aims to enhance efficiency and ensure that any determination of patent validity is applied uniformly when assessing infringement.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy, TGI Sport Virtual Limited, Supponor SASU, TGI Sport Italia S.r.l., Supponor España SL (jointly referred to as TGI)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural motions concerning the amendment of claims and the addition of a defendant in an infringement action. The court upheld the Local Division's decision to allow AIM Sport Development AG to amend its claim and add TGI UK as a party, despite objections from the defendants (TGI). The ruling emphasizes the balance between claimant's needs for comprehensive relief and procedural efficiency, confirming that such amendments are permissible if they do not unduly hinder the defense.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited
In a significant ruling on provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal affirmed the validity and infringement likelihood of EP 2 152 073 concerning herbicide compositions. The court confirmed that the balance of interests favored granting an injunction against Sumi Agro. Furthermore, it clarified procedural aspects, specifically rejecting the requirement for Syngenta to provide security for enforcement, which is a key relief for patent holders seeking immediate protection.
Sodastream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
This UPC Court of Appeal order concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Aarke AB against a finding of infringement made by the CFI. The court permitted the withdrawal because the claimant, Sodastream Industries Ltd., did not object to the request. While Aarke was deemed the unsuccessful party and liable for costs, the proceedings were closed upon the successful withdrawal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal sided with Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., granting an injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The court set aside the initial CFI decision which had found potential added matter in the patent claims. This case highlights the high bar for obtaining preliminary relief while also providing clarity on how general injunctions can be justified based on a single type of infringement, making it crucial reading for medical device IP practitioners.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation before the court. The ruling firmly establishes that self-representation is invalid for lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are parties to the proceedings. Additionally, it reinforces the principle that corporate representatives holding high-level management roles cannot represent their companies due to independence requirements. The court provided a temporary grace period of 14 days for the involved parties to rectify these procedural defects by appointing proper legal counsel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Meril GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation in the Unified Patent Court, specifically concerning public access requests and party standing. The court ruled that self-representation is invalid for both lawyers/patent attorneys acting as parties and corporate officers holding high-level management roles. This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for legal independence under the UPC Agreement. The decision did not resolve the underlying merits of the case but instead issued an exceptional order, granting the involved parties a short window to appoint proper representatives and remedy procedural defects.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
Syngenta Limited initiated an infringement action against Sumi Agro entities concerning European patent EP 2 152 073, which relates to crop protection technology. The Court of First Instance in Munich issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the case. Both parties are summoned to participate in the Interim Conference and the subsequent Oral Hearing, where the core issues of infringement and potential revocation will be debated.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the scope of confidential information protection in an infringement case involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi. The court overturned a previous decision that denied access to Daedalus's US attorneys, recognizing their trustworthiness and necessity for effective litigation. This decision clarifies the boundaries of R. 262A RoP, confirming that professional assistants outside the strict definition of UPC representatives can be granted necessary access.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Newyu, Inc.)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation involving DexCom, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories/associated companies regarding patent EP 3 831 282. The court emphasized that such withdrawals are permissible during appeal proceedings if no final decision is binding. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to terminate litigation.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (jointly referred to as 'the Abbott companies')
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted DexCom, Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiaries. Concurrently, the Abbott companies agreed to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. This mutual withdrawal resulted in the closure of the proceedings, meaning the patent EP 3 435 866 remains fully in force across all relevant territories. The decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding withdrawals during appeal.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (collectively 'the Abbott companies')
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal granted DexCom Inc.'s request to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and associated companies. This withdrawal followed mutual consent from both parties, allowing the court to declare all proceedings closed. The decision is significant as it reinforces the flexibility of the UPC system regarding case closure when parties agree, while also providing a clear procedural path for fee reimbursement.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding security for costs in an ongoing infringement action involving TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR and Texas Instruments. The claimant challenged the initial order, arguing that the judge-rapporteur lacked competence to issue such a binding case management order and simultaneously deny leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that since security for costs is a case management matter, only the full panel can decide on leave to appeal. Consequently, the original order was revoked, and the case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL (collectively 'Magna')
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, Valeo Electrification successfully withdrew its infringement action against Magna. The withdrawal was permitted because the main proceedings were still subject to a pending appeal and Magna provided explicit consent for the case to be closed. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to terminate litigation before a final judgment is rendered.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL (and associated entities)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted Valeo Electrification to withdraw its infringement action against Magna. The withdrawal was facilitated by Magna's explicit consent and the absence of a final judgment in the underlying main proceedings due to an ongoing appeal. This decision highlights how parties can resolve complex litigation early through mutual agreement, even when provisional measures were previously granted.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for intervention by MediaTek, the manufacturer of the processors at issue (Dimensity). The appeal concerned a procedural dispute over access to confidential information regarding processor architecture. The court found that MediaTek possessed a direct and present legal interest in protecting this proprietary information, despite Xiaomi being the party who initially submitted it. This ruling reinforces the rights of technology owners to participate in confidentiality disputes related to their core intellectual property within UPC proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural ruling concerning the protection of confidential information, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Microsoft's request to keep certain details within Exhibit BP 01 private. This decision reinforces the court's ability to manage sensitive commercial data during litigation. The ruling clarifies the distinction between confidentiality for parties involved in the dispute and restrictions against public disclosure.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for provisional measures concerning a C5-binding antibody patent. The core issue revolved around claim interpretation, specifically whether a sequence ID number included extra amino acids as interpreted by the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA). The court ultimately found that this interpretation led to insufficient disclosure under Art. 83 EPC because the resulting claimed molecule was not functional as intended for drug use. Alexion's appeal was rejected, reinforcing strict standards regarding claim scope and enablement in biotech patents.
Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural issues arising from an appeal challenging provisional measures against Sumi Agro Limited. The core dispute involved the alleged infringement by Syngenta using different versions of a product named 'Kagura' (2023 vs 2024). The court ultimately allowed Syngenta to introduce new evidence detailing the characteristics and purchase of the 2024 product, finding that the late submission was justified. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in allowing relevant factual developments during appeal proceedings.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application by Curio Bioscience to grant suspensive effect to a prior Court of First Instance order requiring them to provide security for legal costs. The court ruled against Curio, emphasizing that the burden lies squarely on the applicant to prove 'extreme urgency' under Rule 223 RoP. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements for obtaining temporary relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when challenging interim measures.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
This appeal before the UPC Court of Appeal concerned an application for suspensive effect regarding a preliminary injunction issued by the CFI against Magna. The core dispute centered on whether a specific BMW model, the 2 Series Gran Coupé, was correctly exempted from the injunction's scope. The Court of Appeal sided with Magna, finding that the exclusion was arbitrary and disproportionate given the evidence of production plans for this vehicle. Consequently, the court suspended the effect of the injunction specifically for the 2 Series Gran Coupé model.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict criteria for granting security for costs under R.158 RoP, particularly when enforcement involves foreign jurisdictions like Israel. The court emphasized that a claimant's status as an SME or the defendant's affiliation with a financially sound group is irrelevant; only the defendant's individual financial capacity and the practical enforceability of a cost order matter. Aarke's appeal was rejected because it failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that enforcement in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
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.