Zana
41 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
41 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l.
This Milan Local Division decision addressed a preliminary objection concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case. The defendant argued that since they were based in Italy, the trial must proceed in Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. However, the Court rejected this argument, finding that because the claimant alleged infringing activities across various contracting states (including Germany and via global website presence), the exception to the language rule did not apply. The decision affirms the principle that jurisdiction can be established where infringement occurs or may occur, allowing for flexibility in procedural choices.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
This UPC CFI decision addresses a procedural hurdle in an infringement case, specifically the successful completion of service against a defendant domiciled in China. The court found that despite multiple rejections by Chinese authorities due to minor formal issues, the claimant's attempts complied with The Hague Service Convention and UPC Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the court declared the service valid, allowing the substantive infringement proceedings to move forward without further delays.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v.Molecular Instruments, Inc.
In a significant decision regarding advanced diagnostics technology, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation involving RNAscope technology. The court dismissed the main infringement action brought by Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc., finding no grounds for infringement. Crucially, the court also rejected the request to revoke the patents (EP1910572 and EP2500439), thereby confirming their validity. This ruling provides clarity on the scope of protection for specialized biotech methods in the UPC.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
This UPC decision concerns a motion to review an urgent order for evidence preservation, inspection, and seizure granted by Prinoth S.p.A. against Xelom s.r.l. The dispute centers on alleged infringement of patents related to snow groomers (battipista). The Tribunal upheld the original protective measure, emphasizing that preliminary injunctions based on urgency require only a statistical likelihood of evidence destruction, not concrete proof. This ruling provides important guidance on the scope and quantification of damages in urgent IP proceedings.
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v.AWM s.r.l.
In a significant decision, the UPC Court of First Instance revoked patent EP 2726230 B1 after finding that prior art disclosures by AWM s.r.l., through the marketing of older JIT machines, invalidated the claims. The infringement action brought by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG was subsequently dismissed. This case underscores the critical importance of thorough prior art searches and the impact of pre-filing commercial activity on patent validity in UPC proceedings.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation
In this UPC case, Total Semiconductor sued Texas Instruments for infringing a patent related to intelligent interrupt distribution in multiprocessor systems. The court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. While the decision contained important procedural rulings regarding how claimants must substantiate disputed features and limitations on late amendments during oral hearings, it did not reach a definitive finding of infringement or validity.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In this UPC case concerning a semiconductor patent, the court addressed a critical procedural issue: security for costs. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant, a non-practicing entity structured as a licensing company, should provide financial guarantees to cover potential legal expenses. The Court rejected the Claimant's arguments regarding its startup status and co-working space operations, upholding the requirement for security. This decision reinforces the UPC's strict stance on ensuring procedural fairness and cost recovery in infringement actions.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Sintec S.R.L.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Sintec S.R.L./Value Med S.R.L., concluding an earlier application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 646 825 B1. While the settlement itself was confirmed, the Court rejected Edwards' request to reimburse court fees based on a misapplication of procedural rules. This case highlights the finality and binding nature of settlements within the UPC framework.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
In a significant ruling, the UPC Nordic-Baltic Regional Division found that Sioen NV infringed TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH's patent covering tissue construction for protective clothing. The court granted an injunction requiring the recall and destruction of infringing products and awarded an interim sum of EUR 50,000 to TEXPORT. This decision underscores the effectiveness of the UPC in providing swift remedies against infringement within its territorial scope.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber co. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for re-establishment of rights filed by Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber co. Ltd., following an initial seizure order issued by Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. The core dispute centered on whether procedural notification failures constituted a cause outside the respondent's control, thereby allowing them to reset missed deadlines. The Court ultimately rejected the application, holding that the refusal of the recipient to accept the documents fulfilled the legal requirements for service under Italian law. This ruling reinforces the strict adherence required to UPC procedural timelines.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This decision addresses a critical procedural dispute regarding the protection of confidential information in UPC proceedings involving potential antitrust conflicts. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing data from disclosure to defendants. The Panel ruled that while such regimes are theoretically possible under EU law principles, the Claimant failed to meet the strict burden of proof required by the UPC for demonstrating a concrete risk of anticompetitive harm. Consequently, the application was dismissed, but leave to appeal was granted, setting up an important precedent for future cases balancing IP protection and competition concerns.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the scope of confidentiality protection in patent litigation. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' regime for sensitive licensing data, arguing it was necessary to prevent antitrust conflicts. The Panel rejected this request, emphasizing that such exceptional restrictions require a high burden of proof showing concrete risks of anticompetitive harm. Although the application for review was dismissed, leave to appeal was granted, setting up a potential precedent on balancing confidentiality and competition law within the UPC.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addressed a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to allow further written pleadings in an infringement action against Texas Instruments. The Claimant argued that new and complex technical points raised by the Defendants required additional time for submission. However, the UPC Panel dismissed this review application, emphasizing strict formal requirements for procedural requests under R. 36 RoP. This decision reinforces the court's adherence to established case law regarding the necessary level of substantiation in managing litigation timelines.
3V SIGMA S.P.A. v.AZIENDA CHIMICA E FARMACEUTICA S.P.A. - A.C.E.F. S.P.A. and AZIENDA CHIMICA E FARMACEUTICA S.R.L. - A.C.E.F. S.R.L.
In a significant procedural ruling, 3V Sigma successfully obtained an ex parte preservation of evidence order against ACEF. The case centers on two patents covering triazine compounds and cosmetic compositions used as UV filters. By securing access to samples and technical documentation related to the competitor's product MFSorb 513, 3V Sigma can build a strong evidentiary foundation for future infringement claims. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for pre-trial evidence gathering.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC costs decision addressed the reimbursement of litigation expenses following a successful infringement action. The Tribunal upheld the cost-sharing ratio established in the merits judgment (80% borne by the defendant). However, applying proportionality principles, the court significantly reduced the recoverable legal fees requested by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG, ultimately awarding a total of €77,064.65 to the claimant.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division case involved a complex situation where an infringement action and associated revocation counterclaims were partially withdrawn due to one defendant's insolvency. The Court allowed the withdrawal against the insolvent party (Digital River) but maintained the proceedings against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato). Crucially, the court applied principles of fairness and equity, ruling that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs related to these withdrawals, despite conflicting claims.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division decision addressed procedural matters concerning an ongoing infringement and revocation action involving Ericsson. Due to Digital River's insolvency, Ericsson sought to withdraw its claim against that defendant, which was subsequently allowed. The Court ruled on the allocation of costs for these withdrawal proceedings, finding that equity dictated both parties bear their own expenses, despite initial disagreement.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
In a complex infringement and revocation action, the UPC Milan Local Division issued a crucial procedural order regarding confidentiality. The court adopted an 'external eyes only' regime for highly sensitive documents, allowing access to unredacted information only by designated external counsel, experts, and specific individuals from each party. This decision provides a clear framework for managing trade secrets while ensuring fair trial rights in high-stakes patent litigation.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the protection of confidential information during patent litigation. Ericsson, the Claimant, sought an 'external eyes only' regime to ensure its proprietary data remained protected while maintaining full adversarial access. The Court granted this specialized confidentiality club, allowing restricted access to unredacted documents for authorized parties and experts from both sides. This ruling provides a clear procedural pathway for managing highly sensitive trade secrets within the UPC framework.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars Research S.p.A.
This UPC preliminary order addressed a jurisdictional challenge raised by Alpinestars Research S.p.A. against Dainese S.p.A.'s infringement claim. The Court ruled that, as the defendant was domiciled in an EU Member State participating in the UPCA, the Milan Local Division possessed universal jurisdiction. Crucially, the court affirmed its competence to hear claims concerning patents validated outside the UPC system, specifically in Spain. This decision reinforces the broad territorial reach of the UPC when dealing with defendants within the Union.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.
This UPC decision addresses a critical jurisdictional challenge raised by Alpinestars S.p.A. against Dainese S.p.A.'s infringement claim. The Milan Local Division affirmed its universal jurisdiction, confirming that as the court of domicile for the defendant, the UPC can adjudicate on infringements related to European patents validated outside the UPCA territory (specifically Spain). This ruling solidifies the expansive territorial reach of the UPC in relation to defendants domiciled within participating Member States.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom S.R.L.
Prinoth S.p.A., a global leader in snow grooming vehicles, successfully obtained an urgent provisional measures order from the UPC CFI against Xelom S.R.L. The court authorized inspection of premises and seizure of the disputed electric snow groomer ('Snow Cat'). This decision is significant as it allows patent holders to secure evidence early in litigation when infringement is suspected but not yet proven.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Omnia Retail S.r.l., Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy, Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K., Motocard Bike S.l.
In this procedural order, Dainese S.p.A. successfully requested an extension of deadlines related to its infringement action against several defendants. The UPC Court recognized the need for coordination between the ongoing litigation and parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO concerning EP3498117. By granting the extension, the court prioritized procedural fairness and efficiency over simply staying the case, ensuring all parties have adequate time to examine the EPO's decisions.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
In a procedural confirmation case, the UPC Paris Local Division confirmed a settlement reached between C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED and NOVAWELL regarding infringement of EP 2265793. The parties had initially engaged in both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. By confirming the settlement, the Court formally dismissed the proceedings while maintaining the confidentiality of the agreement's terms. This decision highlights the UPC's role in providing judicial finality to private commercial resolutions.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars Research S.p.A., ULRICH HERPICH E.K, Alpinestars S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L. , HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY, MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L.
This procedural order in a UPC case addressed the claimant's request for protection of confidential information. The Court found that the submitted documents met the criteria for confidentiality, recognizing their economic value and non-public nature. Crucially, the ruling balanced the fundamental right to be heard against the need to protect trade secrets by strictly limiting access to specific individuals from the involved defendants.
Dainese S.p.A. v.ALPINESTARS S.p.A., ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L., HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY, ZUND.STOFF AUGSBURG, MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L.
This procedural order addresses a request by Dainese S.p.A. to protect confidential information related to a settlement agreement reached with one of the defendants (Defendant No. 4). The UPC Local Division affirmed that this document, which details the waiver of claims in the main infringement proceeding, qualifies as protected confidential information under Article 58 UPCA and relevant rules. Consequently, access to the unredacted version was severely restricted, highlighting the court's commitment to balancing transparency with the protection of sensitive commercial dealings.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by Alpinestars S.p.A. to extend its deadline for filing defenses and revocation counterclaims. The court emphasized that coordinating UPC proceedings with parallel EPO appeals can be achieved through flexible procedural measures, such as extensions, rather than resorting to a stay. This ruling reinforces the balance between judicial efficiency and ensuring all parties have full rights of defense in complex patent litigation.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case Oerlikon v Himson addresses key strategic issues in a complex infringement and revocation action concerning textile machinery. The Court confirmed that both parties' claims are narrowly focused on Claim 1, reinforcing the 'front loaded' principle of the UPC system. Furthermore, the court managed evidentiary disputes, allowing for video evidence while restricting late-stage document submissions to maintain procedural efficiency. This decision sets a clear path forward toward an oral hearing in mid-2025.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case UPC_CFI_240/2023 involves Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK (Claimant) against Himson Engineering Private Limited (Respondent) regarding patent EP2145848. The court addressed a scheduling conflict raised by the defendant and subsequently issued an order to postpone the Interim Conference. This highlights the UPC's procedural flexibility in managing complex litigation schedules.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation sought provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics regarding the infringement of its insulin patch pump patent (EP 4201327). The Court dismissed Insulet's application, finding that the necessary cumulative evidence—including a sufficient degree of certainty regarding validity and imminent infringement—was not met. This decision underscores the high procedural bar required to obtain interim relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when faced with multiple validity challenges.
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.