European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 18 of 54 · 1,592 total
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a significant enforcement ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance imposed severe penalties on Kodak entities for non-compliance with a previous final decision regarding EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm successfully argued that despite clear deadlines and notices, the Defendants failed to execute obligations related to information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from commerce. The court established a multi-tiered penalty structure, starting with an immediate lump sum payment of €100,000, escalating to daily fines, underscoring the UPC's robust enforcement mechanisms.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request for an extension of time related to confidential information protection. The Claimant, QIAGEN Sciences, LLC, sought more time to respond to the Defendants' Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation. The Court granted the extension, emphasizing that statutory deadlines must be adjusted when access to critical, unredacted evidence is delayed.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V. and Easee Holding B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an infringement appeal following an out-of-court settlement between Visibly Inc. and Easee B.V. The court formally permitted the withdrawal, declaring the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling clarified the procedural implications of such a withdrawal, specifically addressing the reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.9 RoP. This case serves as an important reminder for practitioners that settlement can lead to formal closure and fee recovery within the UPC framework.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This procedural order addressed complex issues arising from parallel litigation involving infringement and revocation of EP3178578. The UPC Local Division decided to join two related infringement actions (TIRU v. VALINEA ENERGIE and TIRU v. MAGUIN) for efficient case management, citing the principle of good administration of justice. Crucially, while counterclaims seeking patent revocation were correctly referred to the Central Division, the court denied the request to stay the ongoing infringement proceedings.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC decision involves a complex interplay between patent revocation and infringement claims concerning advanced medical device technology (insulin pumps). EOFLOW challenged Insulet's European Patent EP4201327, while Insulet counterclaimed for infringement. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding the issuance of default judgments and mandated a unitary approach to cost calculations in parallel proceedings. This case highlights the UPC's focus on substantive fairness alongside strict adherence to procedural rules.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This UPC decision addresses procedural matters in a complex patent dispute involving TIRU and MAGUIN regarding the waste incineration process EP3178578. The Panel successfully ordered the joinder of two parallel infringement actions concerning the same furnace product to streamline proceedings. Crucially, while referring revocation counterclaims to the Central Division, the court decided not to grant a stay on the main infringement case, allowing it to proceed under specific conditions.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion regarding cost determination following an earlier ruling. Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a specific cost allocation, but subsequently withdrew its application due to an administrative error. The court accepted this withdrawal, effectively closing the costs procedure without altering the underlying substantive dispute or the initial cost split.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex interplay between patent revocation and infringement claims concerning an insulin pump. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding the issuance of decisions by default, stressing the need for robust evidence rather than relying solely on procedural failures. Additionally, it reinforced the principle of unitary cost application when multiple parties (manufacturer and distributor) are involved in parallel litigation over the same patented technology.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues concerning evidence preservation and deadlines under Rule 198.1 EPGVerfO. The respondent sought to nullify an order because they argued that a change in the deadline's starting point constituted an impermissible extension of time. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that judicial discretion allows for adjusting the start date when expert reports are delayed. This ruling confirms the flexibility of procedural rules to ensure fair access to evidence.
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.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In this Central Division revocation action, Sibio Technology Limited challenged the validity of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent EP 3 831 283 B1. The core dispute centered on whether the device's design constituted an inventive step over prior art documents. The Court ultimately dismissed the revocation claim, finding that the claimed invention demonstrated sufficient inventive merit and was not invalidated by the cited prior art. The decision also addressed procedural issues regarding late-filed arguments and the application of Rule 75(3) RoP in subsequent actions, reinforcing principles of flexibility and efficiency within the UPC framework. This ruling provides clarity on how courts assess non-obviousness when a dramatic design change is involved.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
This interim order in the UPC case involving Lenovo and ASUS focuses heavily on procedural matters related to a FRAND objection concerning EP patent 3 682 587. The court granted extensions for both parties to submit their arguments, allowing them to incorporate materials from parallel proceedings into the main litigation. Crucially, the decision confirmed future dates for interim hearings and oral arguments, keeping the infringement case active but focused on procedural progress.
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.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC addressed the critical issue of protecting confidential information within an ongoing infringement action involving Sun Patent Trust and Vivo Mobile Communication. The Court meticulously defined what constitutes 'Confidential' and 'Highly Confidential' data related to the patent EP3407524. This order sets stringent access controls, limiting unredacted documents only to authorized legal counsel and experts of the Defendants, thereby balancing the need for full disclosure in litigation with the imperative of protecting trade secrets.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order related to an infringement action, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed critical issues surrounding confidential information disclosure between Sun Patent Trust and Vivo Mobile Communication entities. The court meticulously defined categories for 'Confidential' and 'Highly Confidential' data within the Statement of Claim. This ruling sets strict parameters on who can view unredacted documents, limiting access to authorized legal counsel and necessary external experts, thereby balancing transparency with trade secret protection.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by Malikie Innovations Ltd. to harmonize time periods related to a counterclaim for revocation (CCR) filed by Discord Inc. The court rejected the extension request, confirming that the deadlines would proceed based on the actual date of service of the CCR within the main infringement workflow. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural rules regarding when defense and amendment periods commence in UPC proceedings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This Mannheim Local Division decision addresses the complex jurisdictional interplay between the UPC and national courts regarding European bundle patents validated in the UK. The court confirmed that while infringement can be litigated before the UPC, revocation of the UK-validated national part cannot occur with erga omnes effect through the UPC. Crucially, it allowed the validity defense to proceed within the infringement action, but only with inter partes effect. Ultimately, the infringement claim was dismissed due to successful invalidity challenges.
bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In this complex UPC case involving bioMérieux and Labrador Diagnostics, the Court issued a critical procedural order following an interim conference. Recognizing that the patent EP 3 756 767 B1 faced an overwhelming number of invalidity attacks, the Panel mandated that the challenging party (bioMérieux) significantly narrow its focus. This ruling emphasizes the need for legal rigor and strategic clarity in complex revocation proceedings, ensuring the oral hearing remains focused on the most promising grounds of attack.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This Mannheim Local Division decision clarifies complex jurisdictional issues surrounding European bundle patents validated in the UK. The court affirmed the UPC's jurisdiction over the infringement of the UK national part, allowing defendants to raise invalidity defenses within the UPC proceedings without needing a separate national revocation action. While finding infringement and ordering product recall/destruction, the ruling emphasizes that declaratory relief obtained before the UPC is not binding on UK national authorities.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In this UPC revocation case, bioMérieux initiated proceedings against Labrador Diagnostics concerning patent EP 3 756 767 B1. Following an interim conference, the Court recognized that the sheer volume of invalidity attacks presented by bioMérieux was unsustainable for a focused oral hearing. The panel mandated that bioMérieux streamline its strategy, selecting only the most promising and logically consistent set of attacks to ensure procedural efficiency.
Sanofi SA and associated entities (including Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, etc.) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France, etc.
This procedural order addresses multiple infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466, involving Sanofi as the claimant and various generic manufacturers (Accord Healthcare, Zentiva, etc.) as defendants. The court confirmed key dates for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing in October 2025. Furthermore, the judge addressed procedural concerns raised by the parties regarding the review of EPO decisions and the standardization of legal briefs across different defendant groups.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request by Kodak defendants seeking enhanced confidentiality protections for information disclosed during enforcement proceedings following an earlier infringement judgment. The court rejected these requests, emphasizing that such confidentiality issues should have been raised and addressed within the original merits proceedings. The ruling reinforces the principle that existing judicial limitations on information use are often sufficient, preventing parties from using tactical procedural applications to secure retroactive secrecy.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP), Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB; STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS; Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl; Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order in a major pharmaceutical patent dispute between Sanofi and various generic competitors (Accord, STADA, Reddy, Zentiva) sets the stage for the final stages of litigation. The court confirmed the dates for the final interim conference and the oral hearing, focusing heavily on complex issues like obviousness related to clinical trial data. Furthermore, the judge addressed procedural concerns raised by defendants regarding the drafting style of claimant's briefs.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures regarding EP 4 001 835, the court denied a request by PMT Technologies to postpone the oral hearing. The ruling emphasized the inherent urgency of interim relief proceedings, stating that scheduling conflicts, such as vacation, do not automatically justify postponement. However, the court provided flexibility by allowing for participation via video conference.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB; STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS; Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl; Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order sets the stage for a complex pharmaceutical patent infringement case involving Sanofi against multiple defendants, including Accord Healthcare and STADA. The court confirmed the dates for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing, indicating that the case is moving toward substantive arguments. A key focus remains on assessing obviousness, requiring parties to prepare expert testimony regarding industry knowledge at the priority date.
Sanofi SA (and related Sanofi entities) v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., etc.
This procedural order addresses multiple infringement actions involving Sanofi and various defendants, including STADA and Accord Healthcare. The court confirmed the schedule for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing, which will focus heavily on complex issues of obviousness related to clinical trial data (Phase III TROPIC study). Practitioners should note the court's proactive approach in managing expert evidence and procedural fairness across multiple related proceedings.
Husqvarna AB v.POSITEC Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance granted POSITEC Germany GmbH's request to change the language of its infringement case from German to English. The court balanced the arguments, ultimately prioritizing the defendant's position regarding fairness and operational needs over the claimant's preference for the patent grant language. This decision reinforces the importance of considering the practical disadvantages faced by parties when determining procedural language in UPC proceedings.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a request for panel review concerning an intended enforcement warning related to EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm Corporation sought to impose daily penalties on the Kodak defendants for non-compliance with previous court orders (destruction, recall, removal from commerce). The Panel ultimately rejected this review request, affirming that the original decision was legally sound. This ruling reinforces the procedural boundaries of UPC panel reviews, clarifying that detailed penalty setting must occur in a subsequent application rather than being altered during a review of the main judgment.
KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH v.BALLINNO B.V.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the confidentiality of financial details within an application for a cost decision. The Claimant sought to protect specific costs information, arguing it constituted a business secret revealing strategic resource allocation. While the court denied the broad request for confidential protection under R. 262A RoP, it granted a narrower measure preventing the Defendant from disclosing the subject matter of the cost decision to third parties. This case highlights the delicate balance between protecting party interests and maintaining public oversight in UPC proceedings.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
In a procedural matter, the UPC granted an extension of time periods in a complex infringement and revocation case involving Fingon LLC and Samsung Electronics. The Defendants successfully argued that they required additional time to analyze new technical arguments introduced by the Claimant, particularly those stemming from third-party software developers. This decision underscores the Court's willingness to grant extensions when parties demonstrate genuine need for further expert or external input, provided it does not unduly delay the proceedings.
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.