Stefan Johansson
27 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
27 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. Et al
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. brought an infringement action against Philips and its subsidiaries regarding a position therapy device covered by EP 2 437 696 B2. However, the Defendants successfully mounted a counterclaim for revocation. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately ruled that the patent was invalid and revoked it entirely. This decision highlights the significant risk associated with maintaining patents in the UPC without robust validity defenses.
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.
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.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC sought provisional measures against German distributor RiVOLUTiON GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of their staple cartridge patent EP3689262. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, meaning no immediate injunction was granted. However, the court concurrently confirmed a preliminary confidentiality order and established a confidentiality club, setting procedural groundwork for future litigation.
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.
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.
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.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought provisional measures against Speed Care Mineral GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of its patent on clay-based hemostatic agents. The UPC Local Division in Hamburg dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to provide sufficient certainty that the Defendant's product contained a binder element as required by the patent claims. This decision highlights the high evidentiary threshold required for applicants seeking urgent relief like preliminary injunctions under the UPC framework.
Imbox Protection A/S v.Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB
This UPC case involved an application to preserve evidence concerning the product EXPRO HUB. Although the Applicant ultimately withdrew its request for preservation measures, the Court made significant rulings regarding costs and confidentiality. The court confirmed that legal cost ceilings apply jointly across multiple defendants in such proceedings. Crucially, it also imposed strict restrictions on the use of confidential information shared by the Defendants, setting a precedent for protecting trade secrets even when initial applications fail.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This order addresses a procedural dispute regarding the costs associated with public access requests to court documents within UPC proceedings. The judge-rapporteur clarified that Article 69 UPCA, which governs cost allocation, is not applicable when parties are consulted by the judge-rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. This ruling sets a clear boundary on who can seek reimbursement of legal costs in these specific procedural contexts, emphasizing that public access requests do not automatically trigger standard cost recovery mechanisms.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In a case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc., the Unified Patent Court proceedings were brought for infringement and revocation of EP3977921. However, both parties mutually consented to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The UPC subsequently declared the entire proceeding closed, highlighting how procedural agreements can lead to early closure in complex patent disputes.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In this UPC case, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. initiated an infringement action against Dexcom Inc., which included a counterclaim for revocation of EP3977921. However, both parties subsequently consented to the withdrawal of all actions. The Court formally declared the proceedings closed based on this mutual agreement. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing cases to be terminated amicably before substantive rulings are made. It serves as a reminder for practitioners that case closure can occur through consent withdrawals rather than litigation outcomes.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
This UPC case involved an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP3977921, related to diabetes care technology. Both the Claimant (Abbott) and the Defendants (Dexcom entities) mutually agreed to withdraw all actions. The Court formally declared the proceedings closed based on this consent, avoiding a substantive ruling on infringement or validity.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by multiple defendants to stay infringement proceedings pending decisions from the EPO Opposition Division. Despite an accelerated opposition hearing being scheduled at the EPO, the Court ruled against rescheduling its own oral hearing. The decision emphasizes the need for the UPC to maintain its timeline while acknowledging the parallel proceedings, setting the stage for the main merits hearing.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
This UPC Order addressed procedural matters in a complex infringement and revocation case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril Life Sciences. The Court confirmed the case value and maintained the scheduled oral hearing date despite concurrent proceedings at the EPO Opposition Division. Crucially, the court ruled to exclude late-filed attacks on inventive step that were not part of the initial claims or defenses, reinforcing principles of procedural fairness in UPC litigation.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This UPC Order sets the stage for an infringement case concerning textile structures (EP2186428). The Court closed the written phase and scheduled a detailed oral hearing in Stockholm. A key procedural victory for the Claimant was the rejection of the Defendant's motions to exclude crucial evidence, affirming that reactive arguments are admissible in litigation.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This UPC CFI order addressed a preliminary objection raised by Sioen NV, challenging the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court over infringement proceedings concerning EP2186428. Sioen argued that parallel national court actions, including revocation and non-infringement claims in Belgium, required the UPC to decline jurisdiction under Brussels I Regulation rules. The Court rejected these arguments, finding no sufficient grounds to stay or dismiss the case. This decision reinforces the UPC's competence in handling infringement cases even when related validity challenges are pending nationally.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This preliminary UPC decision addressed several procedural motions within an ongoing infringement action concerning diabetes monitoring technology. The Court firmly rejected the Claimant's attempts to expand its claims or shift the burden of proof by requesting information, emphasizing adherence to the front-loaded nature of UPCA proceedings. By dismissing these applications and setting clear deadlines for expert evidence and oral hearings, the court moved the case closer to substantive trial.
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).
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
In this procedural order, the UPC dismissed a request by multiple defendants for security for legal costs against the US-based claimant. The Court emphasized that while protecting defendants is important, it cannot unduly restrict a claimant's right to an effective remedy. The ruling clarified that the mere fact of being non-EU based is insufficient grounds for imposing security if the claimant demonstrates financial capacity and willingness to cover adverse costs.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by the Defendants to stay infringement proceedings pending the outcome of an opposition filed at the EPO. The Court rejected the application, emphasizing that the primary legal basis for such a stay requires the expectation of a rapid final decision from the EPO. Given the likelihood of appeals following the opposition, the court determined that the condition for staying the case was not met, allowing the infringement action to proceed.
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.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore Sp. z o.o., Autostore System GmbH, Autostore System AT GmbH, Autostore System AB, Autostore System S.L, Autostore System Srl, Autostore AS, Autostore S.A.S.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope of public access to court documents under R.262.1(b) RoP, specifically in the context of a settlement reached in infringement proceedings. The court ruled that while confidentiality interests must be considered (Art. 45 UPCA), the general interest in justice and public order generally favors granting access unless the requester has a direct, specific legitimate interest in the subject matter. This ruling provides important guidance on balancing transparency with proprietary rights within UPC litigation.
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.