Rinkinen
17 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
17 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
In this UPC case, Emboline, Inc. sued AorticLab srl for infringing a patent covering an embolic protection device. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the defendant's product did not meet all the requirements of the patented claims. Beyond the merits, the decision provided important procedural guidance on how dependent counterclaims are limited and how costs are allocated when certain intra-procedural conditions are not met.
BARCO NV v.YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
This UPC decision concerns the dismissal of a Preliminary Objection filed by YEALINK against BARCO NV. YEALINK had challenged the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division, but following a favorable ruling from the Court of Appeal confirming jurisdiction, YEALINK voluntarily withdrew its objection. The court subsequently closed the proceedings based on this withdrawal, allowing the main infringement case to proceed.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Brussels stayed a Preliminary Objection raised by Yealink regarding its territorial competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. The Court recognized that the exact same issue is currently pending before the UPC Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_317/2025). This decision ensures procedural economy and prevents contradictory findings between the first instance and appellate courts. Practitioners should note how the UPC manages overlapping jurisdictional challenges across different court levels.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural challenge raised by Discord Inc. and its subsidiary, arguing that the claimant, Malikie Innovations Ltd., failed to comply with German national requirements (Sec. 25 GPA) regarding the appointment of a domestic representative. The Mannheim Local Division rejected this defense, establishing that national procedural rules like Sec. 25 GPA do not govern proceedings before the UPC due to the exhaustive nature of the UPC's own procedural law. This ruling reinforces the principle that the UPC operates independently of specific national jurisdictional formalities.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Ericsson and Asustek sets the stage for a complex patent dispute. The parties have agreed to proceed with both an infringement action by Ericsson and a counterclaim for revocation by Asustek. The Court has scheduled the interim conference and the main oral hearing, indicating that the case is moving forward toward substantive arguments.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
This UPC decision confirms the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures concerning EP 1 957 544 B1. DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC., the applicant, successfully withdrew its request with the agreement of Greenchemicals S.R.L., the defendant. The court formally closed the proceedings and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees to the Applicant. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to discontinue an action.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA
Boehringer Ingelheim sought a preliminary injunction at the UPC against Zentiva Portugal regarding the generic version of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Boehringer alleged imminent infringement, but the Court ultimately rejected the application for provisional measures. However, in a notable cost allocation decision, the Court ordered Boehringer to pay the interim legal costs incurred by Zentiva, setting a precedent on how costs are determined even when the main relief is denied.
Hand Held Products Inc. v.Scandit AG
This UPC decision confirms the closure of a complex infringement and revocation proceeding between Hand Held Products Inc. and Scandit AG. The parties voluntarily withdrew both claims after reaching an out-of-court settlement. While no substantive judgment on patent validity or infringement was rendered, the court formally closed the actions and granted reimbursement for 60% of the associated court fees. This case highlights how settlements can efficiently resolve complex UPC disputes.
Viking Arm AS v.Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB
This UPC decision records the formal closure of an infringement and revocation action concerning EP3953541. The Claimant (Viking Arm AS) withdrew its infringement claim, and the Defendants (Stanley Black & Decker entities) simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. As both parties mutually agreed to the withdrawal, the Court formally closed the proceedings without needing to rule on costs or merits.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy, TGI Sport Virtual Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL (and potentially TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited)
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted AIM Sport Development AG leave to significantly amend its infringement action against the Supponor group. The amendments included adding a new defendant (TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited) and extending the scope of the claims to cover joint infringing acts in Spain. The court reasoned that these changes were necessary to prevent conflicting judgments, thereby promoting procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories (and associated entities)
This UPC decision in Düsseldorf concerns the mutual withdrawal of a patent infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against various Abbott entities, alongside a corresponding counterclaim for revocation. The parties agreed to terminate all proceedings, including the application to amend the patent in suit. While the core dispute was resolved through consent, the court issued specific orders regarding the reimbursement of court fees, setting the value in dispute at EUR 4 million each.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the scope and access rights under a confidentiality order in an infringement action involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi Technology. The Claimant sought to expand access for its US counsel and include all future confidential information, arguing this was necessary for effective litigation strategy. The Panel rejected these requests, affirming that the initial restrictions were appropriate given jurisdictional constraints and the need for defined scope. Crucially, the Court granted leave to appeal for the Claimant.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
In a provisional measures case concerning an on-body glucose sensor device (EP3831283), the UPC Court of First Instance denied the application filed by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The core finding was that the patent likely suffers from 'added matter,' making it probable that the claims would be invalidated during full proceedings. This decision not only blocked the preliminary injunction but also mandated that the applicant bear the costs of the current proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. regarding its CGM patent (EP2713879). The UPC Local Division granted the provisional measures, finding sufficient interest in the case despite initial objections from the defendants. This ruling is highly significant for medical device IP holders, demonstrating the court's willingness to grant immediate relief based on a cease-and-desist declaration when the application has legitimate purpose.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
In this provisional measures case concerning an on-body glucose sensor device, the UPC Court of First Instance denied the preliminary injunction sought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The core finding was that the patent in question (EP3831283) suffered from 'added matter,' making it highly probable that the patent would be invalidated if the full merits proceedings were held. This decision underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to the scope of claims during prosecution and litigation within the UPC framework.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought provisional measures against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. regarding the alleged infringement of its CGM device patent (EP2713879) by the GS1 device. The UPC Local Division granted a preliminary injunction, immediately prohibiting the defendants from offering or placing the infringing product on the market in the relevant member states. This ruling is significant as it demonstrates the court's willingness to grant urgent relief based on sufficient interest, even when facing initial objections.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed the method of serving a complaint in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against several Xiaomi and MediaTek entities. The plaintiff argued that certain German branch offices could serve as valid places for service under UPCA Rules 271.5 RoP, despite the defendants being foreign-domiciled. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the strict hierarchy of procedural rules governing international service. The ruling clarified that when defendants are domiciled outside the UPCA territory, standard international procedures like the Hague Service Convention must be followed under Rules 273 and 274 RoP. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established international legal frameworks for proper litigation procedure in 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.