Ulrike Vo
52 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
52 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed the procedural consequences of withdrawing counterclaims for both patent revocation and a FRAND license offer. The Court permitted the withdrawals, declaring the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling clarified that even though a FRAND license offer counterclaim is related to the main infringement action, it constitutes an independent proceeding requiring court fees, thereby preventing a full refund upon withdrawal.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Commuincation Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
In this UPC case, NEC Corporation initiated a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning EP 3 057 321. Before the written procedure concluded, the Claimant voluntarily withdrew the suit due to a contractual agreement reached with the Defendants. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed. Crucially, the court ruled that the claimant was entitled to a significant reimbursement of court fees (60%), setting a clear precedent for cost recovery in voluntary withdrawals.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Commuincation Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
In this UPC decision, NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its patent infringement action against several TCL entities before a final judgment was rendered. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling confirmed that even upon voluntary withdrawal, specific rules apply regarding court fee reimbursement, granting NEC 60% of the fees paid.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed both Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom (and affiliates) to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims regarding EP 4 087 195. The withdrawal was permitted because neither party demonstrated a legitimate interest in forcing the continuation of the litigation. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to terminate complex patent disputes by mutual consent, provided no vested interests are at stake.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC decision concerns a procedural matter where Avago Technologies sought to withdraw its application for interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation regarding EP 1 770 912. The court granted the withdrawal, noting that since the initial order had not been served and the respondent was unaware of the proceedings, no active participation or hearing was required. This ruling underscores the procedural flexibility within the UPC when parties voluntarily terminate actions.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC decision concerns the withdrawal of a counterclaim for invalidity filed by Tesla against Avago Technologies regarding EP 1 770 912. The court granted the request to withdraw, finding that since the action had not reached a final judgment and no legitimate interest was asserted by the claimant, the withdrawal was permissible under UPC Rules. Consequently, the entire proceeding was terminated.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a case involving Avago Technologies against Tesla, the claimant voluntarily withdrew its infringement lawsuit concerning EP 1 770 912. The Munich Local Division of the UPC granted this request, terminating the proceedings without prejudice to future actions. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework regarding claim withdrawal when no party has a vested interest in the outcome.
Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC decision addressed an application for access to court files filed by Harting Electric Stiftung & Co. KG (the applicant) in a case involving infringement and opposition proceedings related to EP 3 602 692. The core dispute was whether the applicant, who is also involved in national litigation concerning derivative utility models, had a right to review evidence from the main UPC infringement suit. The court ultimately granted access, establishing that parties in ongoing opposition proceedings have a legitimate interest in reviewing relevant case materials for proper defense and representation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC case involved Avago seeking provisional measures to halt Realtek's US litigation and the enforcement of German injunctions, arguing that these actions violated fundamental European justice rights. The court initially considered the request but later issued a correction to its order. Crucially, the final ruling allowed the US-based legal proceedings to continue regarding claims other than those related to the alleged license breach, keeping the matter pending.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH, Myriad GmbH, Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad Genetics Inc., Eurobio Scientific
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Court mandated that the Claimant, GXD-Bio Corporation, provide security for legal costs to the Defendants. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant's financial standing raised legitimate concerns about cost recovery. Although the initial request was for a default judgment upon failure to comply, the Court granted a seven-week extension until January 15, 2025, allowing the Claimant time to arrange the necessary deposit.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd
This UPC decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to patent infringement (EP 3 197 316). The Court ruled that despite Rule 370(9)(b) VerfO explicitly referencing 'Klage' (action), it could be analogously applied to provisional measure applications. This ruling fills a regulatory gap, confirming that the incentive structure for early case termination—where fees are partially refunded based on when the application is withdrawn—applies consistently across different types of UPC proceedings.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In a significant revocation action, the UPC Central Division completely revoked EP 2 794 928 B1, which covers methods for detecting analytes. The court determined that the patent lacked novelty over existing prior art (Göransson). This decision aligns with previous findings from both national courts and the Court of Appeal in related cases. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to rigorous examination of patent validity and strict adherence to procedural deadlines.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving infringement and revocation, the central patent (EP 3 225 320 B1) was fully revoked by the EPO Board of Appeal prior to the final hearing. Consequently, the Local Division of Munich allowed the claimant to withdraw its infringement suit and declared the infringement proceedings terminated. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed as moot. This decision highlights how external events, such as patent revocation, can fundamentally alter the trajectory of UPC litigation.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
In this UPC case, i-mop GmbH successfully obtained a default judgment against ARCORA International GmbH regarding the infringement of its floor cleaning device patent (EP 3 760 094). The court found that ARCORA's product infringed the patent claims and granted preliminary relief, including damages and an injunction. Although the case was ultimately concluded due to partial withdrawal by i-mop, the ruling serves as a significant precedent regarding default judgments in UPC infringement proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC decision concerns an application by a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) to intervene in a patent infringement and revocation case involving NEC Corporation and TCL entities. The core issue was whether the Applicant had a sufficient legal interest to participate, given that the dispute involved FRAND licensing obligations under the HEVC standard. The Court ultimately permitted the intervention but imposed strict confidentiality measures on the access to sensitive negotiation details.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Order concerns an application to intervene in a patent infringement and revocation case involving NEC Corporation against various TCL entities, concerning HEVC Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The intervener is Access Advance LLC, the administrator of the relevant SEP pool. The Court ruled that the pool administrator possesses a genuine legal interest in the outcome, thereby admitting them as a party to the proceedings. This decision clarifies the procedural rights and limitations regarding confidential information access for patent pool administrators participating in UPC litigation.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order addressed a request for protection of confidential information filed by the Defendants in an infringement action. The UPC Court granted the confidentiality request, recognizing that sensitive details regarding negotiations and FRAND Counterclaims required protection. This decision reinforces the mechanism available under the UPCA to safeguard trade secrets during litigation. For patent practitioners, this case highlights the importance of adhering strictly to procedural rules (Rule 262A RoP) when seeking confidential treatment for information.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order addressed a request for protection of confidential information filed by several TCL entities in an infringement action against NEC Corporation. The UPC Court confirmed the confidentiality status of sensitive documents related to FRAND negotiations and counterclaims. The ruling sets out strict rules governing who can access this proprietary data, ensuring that it is only used within the scope of the litigation. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms available under the UPCA for protecting trade secrets during complex patent disputes.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, AUDI AG
Network System Technologies LLC successfully withdrew its infringement action against Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH following a settlement, as permitted under UPC Rule 265 RoP. The court formally closed these proceedings while leaving the claims against Volkswagen AG and AUDI AG unaffected. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties reach private settlements.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited , Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural order concerning confidential information, the UPC Local Division Munich balanced the need for parties' effective legal representation against the protection of trade secrets. The Court granted the Defendants' request to classify certain internal documents as strictly confidential, limiting access only to named representatives and employees. This ruling reinforces the principle that while lawyers require necessary access, accountability must be maintained by clearly defining who is responsible for maintaining confidentiality.
Qufora A/S v.Manfred Sauer GmbH and Mr. Manfred Sauer
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendants (Manfred Sauer GmbH and Mr. Manfred Sauer) to waive translation requirements for several German-language documents in an infringement case against Qufora A/S. The Court ultimately dismissed the waiver request, emphasizing that while both parties had German-speaking representation, the panel itself lacked sufficient language skills regarding the original materials. Crucially, because the Applicants had already provided machine translations as a fallback measure, the procedural application was dismissed without further action.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o
In this preliminary procedural order, the UPC Court addressed an issue of service of process in a patent infringement case brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities. The core dispute revolved around proving that Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.) had properly received the claim filed under EP 3 057 321. The court ultimately accepted the defendant's own statement as valid proof of service, thereby clearing a procedural hurdle and allowing the main infringement action to proceed.
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.