European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 23 of 54 · 1,592 total
INSULET CORPORATION v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex dispute between medical device manufacturers EOFLOW and INSULET concerning the insulin pump patent EP4201327. The case involved parallel revocation and infringement actions, alongside preliminary injunction proceedings. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding default judgments and cost caps in multi-party litigation. Practitioners should note the emphasis on literal claim interpretation and the necessity of a unitary approach when dealing with related infringers.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
In this UPC case, Dolby International AB sued Epson France SAS (among others) for alleged infringement of EP 3 605 534B1. The defense raised a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the claimant's withdrawal from the Opt-out regime was invalid. The Local Division of Hamburg dismissed this opposition, finding that the procedural requirements had been met and allowing the case to proceed. This decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for managing opt-outs within the UPC framework.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a request by Grundfos Holding A/S to correct an earlier ruling against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf accepted the correction, significantly altering the scope of obligations placed on the respondent. Key changes include mandating product recalls for infringing goods and confirming that the respondent must compensate the claimant for all resulting damages. This case highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC to ensure judicial accuracy.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision concerns an application by Chainzone Technology to suspend the effect of a judgment against it, which had found it liable for patent infringement. The appeal was filed following a local court ruling that largely favored Swarco, the patent holder. The Board ultimately rejected Chainzone's request for suspension, citing insufficient substantiation in its legal arguments regarding the interpretation of the patent claim.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This UPC procedural order in the case of BAUSSMANN v. Raimund Beck Nageltechnik concerns a revocation action against EP 4 019 790. The court has set strict deadlines for both parties to submit their respective pleadings regarding the patent's validity and potential amendments. While no substantive decision was made, this order highlights the procedural rigor of UPC proceedings when dealing with complex issues like amending patents during litigation.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna, Inc.
In a procedural order concerning two infringement actions, the UPC Local Division dismissed most preliminary objections raised by Moderna against Genevant Sciences. Moderna had challenged the court's jurisdiction and competence for various defendants and patents. The Court ruled that the patent was validly opted-out and withdrawn, thereby confirming the UPC's authority to hear the case. While some issues regarding long-arm jurisdiction remain pending in the main proceedings, the path is cleared for the infringement claims to move forward.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter where NJOY Netherlands B.V. sought to withdraw an appeal against Juul Labs International Inc. The underlying action was a revocation suit brought before the CFI, which had previously dismissed it. Given that both parties consented to the withdrawal, the CoA permitted the closure of the proceedings. This case highlights the importance of party consent in procedural matters under the UPC Rules of Procedure.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Biotech UK Limited (and all Moderna group entities)
This UPC Procedural Order addressed preliminary objections raised by the Moderna group against Arbutus Biopharma Corporation's infringement claims concerning two biotech patents (EP2279254 and EP4241767). Moderna challenged the Court's jurisdiction, particularly regarding long-arm jurisdiction for various international subsidiaries. The Hague Local Division largely rejected these objections, confirming its competence to hear the case. This ruling is significant as it clears a major procedural hurdle, allowing the substantive infringement claims to move forward.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, Warmcook
In this UPC decision, the Paris Local Division addressed complex issues regarding patent amendments and infringement claims. Although the court allowed Hurom Co., Ltd to unconditionally amend its patent (EP3155936), it ultimately found that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient factual evidence of infringement in Poland. Consequently, all infringement claims were dismissed, setting a high bar for claimants seeking remedies outside the core UPC territory.
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.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 767 151, the UPC granted a stay of proceedings at the joint request of Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. and Häfele SE & Co. KG. This decision allows both parties to concentrate on ongoing settlement negotiations without the immediate pressure of an oral hearing. The ruling highlights the Court's flexibility in managing litigation when parties seek amicable resolution.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses an application for interim relief concerning patent infringement. The court ruled that the requirement for a security deposit to ensure enforcement is not automatic and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the lower court. The ruling emphasizes that parties should raise all relevant facts, including financial vulnerabilities, during the initial proceedings rather than relying solely on them in an appeal.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
In a significant revocation action, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH successfully challenged and obtained the revocation of European patent EP 1 944 067 B1 against Ballinno B.V. The court confirmed the patent's invalidity for Germany and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the decision provided important guidance on claim interpretation, emphasizing that general terms in a patent claim cannot be restricted by specific examples or embodiments found within the patent description.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a request for security for costs filed by Siemens Healthineers against Hologic in an infringement and revocation action. Siemens argued that enforcing potential cost orders would be unduly burdensome due to Hologic's US domicile, citing lack of international judgment recognition treaties. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the burden lies on the applicant to prove undue burden with specific evidence regarding foreign law application. This ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required for security for costs applications in UPC proceedings.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS
In a case involving Roche and Tandem Diabetes Care against Rubin Medical, the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued an important procedural order concerning trade secret protection. The court successfully granted the request to classify specific documents as confidential under Article 58 EPC. This ruling sets strict boundaries on who can access sensitive information during the ongoing infringement proceedings, emphasizing the importance of confidentiality protocols in high-stakes biotech litigation.
Jingao Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect and expedition filed by Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. against Jingao Solar Co., Ltd. The appeal concerned a security for costs order issued by the Court of First Instance in the main infringement/revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 787 541. The Court ultimately rejected Chint's request, upholding the original timeline and requiring Chint to provide the stipulated security.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim harmonized the deadlines for two related defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. The court agreed with the parties' request to set a uniform deadline of July 2, 2025, for submitting Statements of Defence. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the Court's willingness to manage procedural complexities in multi-defendant cases involving corporate groups, prioritizing efficiency over strict adherence to initial service dates.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku, Inc.
In this UPC decision, Sun Patent Trust sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) against Roku, Inc., aiming to prevent Roku from pursuing related anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunctions in US courts. The court ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate a genuine risk of irreparable harm; here, the court found that the requested AASI was likely futile and risked prejudicing the claimant's rights without proper preliminary steps.
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.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
Dolby International AB sought provisional measures at the UPC to prevent Roku, Inc. from pursuing Anti-Suit or Anti-Enforcement Injunctions in US courts related to the HEVC standard patent EP 3 490 258. The court ultimately denied Dolby's request for these protective measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate sufficient urgency and risk; otherwise, they may be liable for costs.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
In a preliminary procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted a strict confidentiality order protecting financial information submitted by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. The court found that the Defendant failed to prove the public availability of this sensitive data, justifying the protection under UPCA rules. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to safeguarding proprietary business information during litigation.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA
This procedural order in the Belparts v. IMI Hydronic case confirms the court's decision to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation simultaneously, despite potential conflicts between arguments presented in different proceedings. The UPC Local Division Munich set specific dates for future hearings, including an interim videoconference and a full oral hearing scheduled for June 2026. This order highlights the procedural flexibility of the UPC while managing complex litigation strategies involving multiple claims.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed the logistical challenges of inspecting large agricultural machinery central to an infringement claim. The Court ruled that Article 53(f) UPCA provides a broad scope for evidence gathering, allowing dynamic experiments on-site rather than strictly limited inspections in the courtroom. This ruling is significant as it facilitates complex technical evaluations involving bulky industrial equipment.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order addresses a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to amend its infringement action to include the AM67x product as an attacked embodiment. The court recognized the complexity of balancing the claimant's need to address new market activity against the defendants' right to prepare their defense. Instead of making a final ruling immediately, the judge postponed the decision until the oral hearing while granting the defendants time to respond in substance to the proposed amendment.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH; Hisense Europe Holding GmbH; TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG.; TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH; TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o; TCL Belgium, SA; LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH; LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V; LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning the separation of infringement proceedings based on concerns over confidential supply chain information. The defendants (Hisense, TCL, LG) argued that sharing sensitive data among competing entities would violate EU competition law and impair their right to be heard. However, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that procedural economy outweighs the need for separation. It clarified that confidentiality can be protected through existing rules of procedure (R. 262A RoP) and internal party arrangements.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division Mannheim addressed the claimant's request for additional written submissions regarding AVS Class 0. The Court found that while repeated requests are usually inadmissible, it exceptionally allowed limited supplementation on this specific technical point to ensure all arguments were considered before the oral hearing. This decision highlights the court's balance between procedural efficiency and ensuring a fair presentation of complex technical issues.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order concerning a patent infringement action, the Claimant sought leave to amend its case to include new submissions regarding 'Threat Simulator' and 'ThreatARMOR.' The Defendants opposed this request. The Local Division Mannheim postponed the final decision on whether to grant this leave until the oral hearing. This ruling highlights the Court's cautious approach when assessing amendments that introduce potentially distinct attacked embodiments, requiring a full understanding of the patent scope before making a determination.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision addresses a cost determination procedure following an infringement lawsuit and counterclaim for revocation involving EP 3 375 337 B1. The court found in favor of the claimant, Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, upholding the costs awarded despite the defendant's arguments that the fees were excessive given the limited scope of the alleged infringement. The ruling reinforces the standard requiring a substantive defense against cost objections.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This decision addresses an application for rectification filed by Kodak against a previous ruling concerning patent infringement and revocation. The defendants sought to clarify the value in dispute, arguing it should be set separately for the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. However, the UPC Local Division dismissed this request, confirming that the original panel intended the EUR 15 million figure to cover both actions collectively. This case reinforces the strict interpretation of Rule 353 RoP regarding what constitutes an 'obvious slip' or deviation from the court's actual intention.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement and revocation dispute concerning the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab (Repatha®). While the case involved detailed arguments regarding second medical use claims, the court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The ruling served to clarify procedural aspects of patent litigation within the UPC, particularly emphasizing that pleading ignorance is not recognized under the Rules of Procedure.
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.