European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 54 · 1,592 total
Amazon.com, Inc. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the rules surrounding the use of private transcripts derived from oral hearing recordings. The court ruled that while a full transcript is not automatically provided by the UPC, parties can obtain one with professional assistance if specific conditions are met. These conditions include clearly labeling the document as non-authoritative and ensuring compliance with all confidentiality and data protection mandates.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal concerning provisional measures related to a CGM patent. The court confirmed its jurisdiction based on the likelihood of damage arising from products intended for UPC Member States. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, and the Appellants were ordered to pay €200,000 in interim costs to the Respondent. This case reinforces the broad jurisdictional reach of the UPC when infringing goods are marketed within the territory.
Emporia UK and Ireland Limited v.Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd.
In this significant UPC decision, the court granted a revocation action against an LED patent (EP 3 926 698 B1) due to added subject-matter. While some claims were already invalidated in parallel proceedings, the UPC confirmed the invalidity of several remaining dependent claims. The ruling provides important guidance on how partial revocation affects dependent claims and addresses procedural hurdles related to amendments following complex litigation.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This appeal court ruling addresses a procedural dispute regarding the jurisdiction for determining litigation costs following an initial judgment and subsequent appeals. Rematec sought to have its costs application referred back to the Local Division (GEI) based on prior rulings, but the Appeal Court denied this request. The court clarified that cost determination always originates at the GEI under the Rules of Procedure, regardless of whether the application follows a decision from the Appeal Court. This reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC litigation.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involved multiple appeals concerning infringement and international jurisdiction related to a juice extractor patent. The court addressed complex procedural issues regarding how parties establish their choice of forum under Brussels Ia Regulation, while also reviewing the merits of the claims. Ultimately, the appeal decisions were partially set aside, confirming certain jurisdictional limitations but maintaining the financial value of the dispute at €675,000.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural matters in a dispute over neuromodulation systems. While the core infringement appeal was dismissed, the court issued an order regarding provisional costs. The ruling reinforces principles on how non-registered claims can be asserted and clarifies the standards for determining indirect patent use (Verwendungsbestimmung) based on objective evidence. This case is significant for practitioners dealing with procedural hurdles in complex medical device IP litigation.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing patent litigation when parties reach an out-of-court settlement. IMI Hydronic Engineering sought to revoke EP3812870, while Belparts counterclaimed for infringement. The Court granted permission for both actions to be withdrawn, effectively closing the proceedings. The ruling emphasizes that if no final decision has been rendered and all parties agree on the withdrawal without objection, the court will permit the case closure under Rule 265.1 RoP.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
In this case, IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH initiated a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning patent EP3812870. While the proceedings progressed through interim conferences and even faced potential oral hearings, both parties ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Court of First Instance subsequently permitted the withdrawal of both the revocation action and the infringement counterclaim, declaring the case closed. This decision highlights the practical reality that settlements often supersede ongoing litigation in the UPC framework.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. v.Amgen, Inc
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns procedural matters, specifically the withdrawal of applications for rehearing in a complex dispute involving Sanofi and Amgen over patent EP 3 666 797. Following earlier proceedings where the Central Division had revoked the patent, both parties engaged in appeals and subsequent requests for rehearing. Ultimately, the Court permitted the withdrawal of these procedural actions upon consent from all involved parties. This case highlights how UPC courts manage complex litigation pathways when parties agree to terminate specific stages of the legal process.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l.
In a case involving F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the claimants to withdraw their infringement action concerning EP 1 962 668. This withdrawal was based on an out-of-court settlement reached between the parties, which stipulated that each party would bear its own costs. The court confirmed the termination of proceedings and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees for Roche.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This procedural order addressed a request for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an infringement action in the UPC. The Court confirmed that because the case was terminated before the conclusion of the written procedure, the Claimant was entitled to 60% of their paid court fees under Rule 370.9 RoP. This decision highlights the practical application of cost recovery rules when litigation is voluntarily withdrawn.
REEL International v.Fives ECL
In this UPC revocation action, REEL International challenged EP 1 740 740 held by Fives ECL. Fives ECL attempted to dismiss the case based on lack of standing and res judicata stemming from national German court decisions. The Central Division rejected these preliminary objections, confirming that such defenses do not preclude the UPC's jurisdiction. This decision ensures the substantive merits of the patent revocation claim will be heard.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS v.Amgen N.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal in a pharmaceutical infringement case (Sanofi/Regeneron v. Amgen). Although the parties successfully withdrew the proceedings, citing an agreement and consent from all parties, the court strictly ruled on the financial aspects. The request for reimbursement of court fees was dismissed because the withdrawal occurred after the written procedure had been closed, demonstrating the Court's adherence to procedural timelines.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This UPC Appeals Board decision addressed ALPINA's request for suspensive effect against the initial infringement judgment issued by the Local Court. ALPINA argued that immediate enforcement would cause irreparable harm, especially given ongoing parallel validity proceedings. However, the court rejected this argument, finding that ALPINA failed to provide concrete evidence of significant damages or specific costs associated with the alleged infringement and subsequent required modifications. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests for suspension must be grounded in demonstrable, present disadvantages.
Amgen N.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Amgen against a prior ruling in infringement proceedings. The case, involving major biotech players like Regeneron and Sanofi, was ultimately withdrawn because the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Although the court permitted the procedural withdrawal, it strictly denied Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees, highlighting the precise application of UPC Rules of Procedure regarding timing and fee recovery.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for applications seeking suspensive effect. The court emphasized that parties must present their full case upfront, meaning subsequent applications based on similar arguments are inadmissible. This ruling reinforces the principle of judicial efficiency and timely disclosure in complex patent litigation.
Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
In this UPC case, Versah LLC initiated an infringement lawsuit against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning EP 2 919 672 B1. However, before the written proceedings concluded, the claimant filed a motion to withdraw the claim. Both parties agreed to this withdrawal and subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement. The court granted the request for withdrawal and declared the case closed, while also ordering the refund of 60% of the initial court fees.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This UPC decision addressed preliminary objections regarding the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division in a complex infringement case involving multiple Bosch entities. The Court clarified that for Article 33(1)(b) AJUB to apply, the commercial link must exist among all defendants, not necessarily individually with the anchoring defendant. Crucially, 'same infringement' only requires violation of the same patent, not identical products. While rejecting the request to dismiss the case, the panel granted permission for an appeal, signaling a significant legal development on jurisdictional scope.
Topsoe A/S v.HyGear B.V.
In this procedural matter, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by HyGear B.V. to change the language of proceedings from German to English for EP3802413. The court applied the fairness criteria under Art. 49(5) UPCA, considering factors like the predominant language in the hydrogen technology field and the practical disadvantages faced by non-German speaking parties. Ultimately, the request was granted, emphasizing that efficient communication is crucial in accelerated UPC proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a dispute over the confidentiality of business information disclosed during infringement proceedings. EOFlow sought to classify internal data, such as turnover numbers and pricing, as confidential under R. 262.2 RoP. The court ruled against EOFlow, emphasizing that mere disclosure in litigation does not automatically grant trade secret protection if specific protective measures are absent. This reinforces the strict requirements for maintaining confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH
This Düsseldorf Local Division decision addresses a complex FRAND dispute involving Dolby and Beko concerning smart TV codecs. The court provided key guidance on establishing a dominant position in the context of standard-essential patents, linking it to consumer expectations for universal compatibility. Crucially, the ruling reinforced the strict procedural requirements of the Huawei v. ZTE negotiation framework, clarifying that failure by the alleged infringer to make an initial licensing offer ends the FRAND assessment immediately.
GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED et al. v.ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
In this procedural order concerning a costs request, the UPC Local Division addressed the financial concerns of ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A., the respondent in an infringement action involving EP 3 107 487 B1. The court determined that while the claimant's financial situation was considered, security for costs was necessary to protect the rights of the defendants. Consequently, ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A. was ordered to deposit €600,000 within 21 days.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This UPC decision, delivered by the Düsseldorf Local Chamber, addressed a complex infringement case concerning milk frothing technology. While the claimant sought an injunction and damages for patent infringement (EP 3 398 487 B1), the court ultimately dismissed the main claim. Crucially, the judgment provided important guidance on remedies, specifically clarifying that advertising materials are exempt from mandatory destruction under Art. 64(2)(e) UPC Agreement because they do not constitute 'relevant materials' used in production.
Veolia Proprete v.Tiru
In a complex multi-procedural case, the UPC Central Division addressed challenges to the validity of EP 3178578 B1, which covers waste incineration technology. Although the primary request for full revocation was denied, the Tribunal allowed the patent to be maintained in a modified form based on subsidiary claims. This decision highlights the court's willingness to balance legal certainty with technical innovation by allowing targeted modifications rather than outright cancellation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding the determination of FRAND license terms in essential patent litigation. Vivo challenged the Paris Local Division's ruling that deferred the FRAND claim to the main proceedings, arguing it lacked UPC competence. The CoA affirmed this deferral, establishing that the FRAND determination is intrinsically linked to and dependent upon the finding of infringement, thus making it a matter for the main court to decide.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict procedural requirements governing ex parte orders for evidence preservation. Ecovacs sought an inspection order against Roborock, but the Local Division revoked it due to incomplete disclosure by Ecovacs regarding Roborock's direct market activities. The Court of Appeal upheld this revocation, stressing that applicants have a heightened duty under R. 192.3 RoP to disclose all material facts influencing the court’s decision, regardless of whether those facts are later introduced in the main action.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision addressed an infringement suit brought by TRUMPF against IPG regarding a patent covering laser beam generation using multi-clad fibers. Although the court ultimately dismissed the main infringement claim, it issued a significant finding that the defendant is liable for further damages resulting from the alleged infringing activities. The counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was also rejected, leaving the patent valid but with complex financial implications.
La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS; Substipharm
In this UPC CFI decision concerning a revocation action, the court addressed the defendants' request for security for costs against the claimant. Despite the claimant asserting SME status and arguing that such an order would restrict access to justice, the Court found the defendant's arguments regarding the claimant's financial vulnerability credible. Consequently, the court ordered the claimant to provide €75,000 in security within six weeks, setting a specific amount while rejecting the defendants' demands for higher sums or faster deadlines.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
In this UPC cost decision concerning EP 3 784 233, the Court confirmed that once a patent has been definitively revoked by the EPO's Opposition Division, any parallel revocation action before the UPC becomes redundant. The panel ordered the disposal of the proceedings and ruled on costs, awarding Neurocrine substantial compensation for its legal efforts. This case underscores the importance of monitoring opposition proceedings when pursuing invalidity claims in the UPC.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE INC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses complex jurisdictional challenges raised by multiple respondents against a patent infringement suit. The court ruled that the UPC is incompetent to adjudicate claims concerning alleged infringements occurring outside the EU, specifically naming Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland. Crucially, the claimant failed to meet evidentiary requirements regarding assets within the jurisdiction necessary for certain jurisdictional arguments under Regulation 1215/2012. This case reinforces strict limits on the UPC's international reach.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.