European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 25 of 54 · 1,592 total
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company Limited / The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Disney and InterDigital VC Holdings. The Defendants successfully argued for changing the court's language from German to English, aligning with the patent grant language. The Court upheld this request, citing principles that prioritize the defendant's position when balancing interests are equal, underscoring the practical importance of business context in UPC procedural matters.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order in the UPC infringement action between 10x Genomics and Curio Bioscience addresses the availability of technical samples for inspection. The Court noted the Defendant's willingness to provide samples but pointed out that the timing was late, as no reasons were provided after written proceedings closed. The matter is now pending a decision by the Panel during the oral hearing.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
In a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990, the UPC Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs. This decision was based on the accelerated timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. The ruling highlights the practical mechanism for coordinating litigation between the UPC and national/EPO bodies when decisions are expected rapidly.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request concerning the composition of the confidentiality club in an ongoing infringement action involving Fujifilm and Kodak. The court ruled that while the claimant could not fully expand its access authorizations, it was granted permission to replace certain members with others whose involvement did not pose an undue risk to the defendants' confidential information. This highlights the court's careful balancing act when managing procedural aspects of sensitive IP litigation.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding cost allocation following a default judgment in a revocation action. The applicant sought to recover costs related to their attempt to set aside the initial default ruling. The Court ruled that because setting aside a default is an internal procedural remedy, these specific costs should not be determined separately but must be integrated into the final cost assessment of the main proceedings.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a cost application filed by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft following a revocation action that resulted in a default judgment against them. The court ruled that the procedural step of seeking to set aside the default judgment is an internal remedy and cannot independently generate a costs award. Instead, the costs associated with this specific procedural challenge must be integrated into the cost assessment of the main proceedings (the original revocation action). This ruling clarifies the scope of cost claims in UPC procedures involving interlocutory remedies.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC Cost Decision addressed the reimbursement claims filed by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against Tandem Diabetes Care entities following a revocation action. The court firmly rejected the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings based on a pending appeal, emphasizing that such appeals cannot unduly delay the successful party's right to prompt financial settlement. Ultimately, the court determined the final costs at EUR 117,741.62 after carefully adjusting travel expenses while validating representation fees within the applicable ceiling.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Sweden) AB, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS (Danemark) ApS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE LUXEMBOURG S.A., XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl and HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA
ArcelorMittal initiated an infringement action against numerous XPENG-related entities concerning a patent covering coated steel strips and stamped products. However, the claimant subsequently filed an application to withdraw the suit, citing a settlement reached with the defendants. The UPC Court granted the withdrawal request, formally closing the proceedings. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to exit litigation early when settlements are reached.
Hand Held Products Inc. v.Scandit AG
This UPC decision confirms the closure of a complex infringement and revocation proceeding between Hand Held Products Inc. and Scandit AG. The parties voluntarily withdrew both claims after reaching an out-of-court settlement. While no substantive judgment on patent validity or infringement was rendered, the court formally closed the actions and granted reimbursement for 60% of the associated court fees. This case highlights how settlements can efficiently resolve complex UPC disputes.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In this cost determination case, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH for reimbursement of legal costs against Tandem Diabetes Care. The court firmly rejected the respondents' attempt to stay the proceedings based merely on a pending appeal on the merits, reinforcing the principle that successful parties should not be unduly delayed in receiving cost awards. After reviewing and adjusting various expense claims, including travel costs, the Court ultimately granted the requested compensation of EUR 117,741.62.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division order addresses a critical procedural dispute regarding the handling of highly confidential information in an infringement and revocation action. The Court established a comprehensive 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime, balancing the parties' rights to fair trial and full disclosure. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it provides clear guidance on how courts manage sensitive trade secrets within complex UPC litigation.
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.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a motion by Xiaomi defendants seeking to exclude arguments made by Nera Innovations Ltd. regarding the patentability of specific dependent claims (Hilfsanträge). The court found that the claimant had sufficiently disclosed the basis for these combined claims in earlier filings and that subsequent elaborations were permissible under procedural rules. This decision reinforces the principle of procedural economy, allowing parties to build upon existing arguments without being strictly limited by initial filing requirements.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this appeal action for revocation, the UPC Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings upon request by Juul Labs International, Inc., pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO Boards of Appeal. The court determined that since the EPO proceedings were accelerated and expected to conclude rapidly relative to the UPC's hearing schedule, staying the appeal was appropriate under R. 295(a) RoP. This decision highlights the practical mechanism for managing concurrent litigation between the Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Office.
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.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict rules governing access to written pleadings and evidence in ongoing proceedings. The court ruled that while blanket requests are inadmissible, immediate access can be granted if a member of the public demonstrates a direct interest in the patent's validity—as Nicoventures did due to its prior opposition efforts. Crucially, this access is conditional, preventing the recipient from filing or distributing the documents with other judicial instances like the EPO Boards of Appeal until the UPC appeal concludes.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope and conditions for public access to written pleadings in UPC proceedings, specifically concerning a party's interest in parallel EPO appeal proceedings. The court granted immediate access to specific documents requested by Nicoventures Trading Limited, recognizing its direct stake in the patent's validity. Crucially, this access was conditioned on Nicoventures agreeing not to file or distribute these materials with other courts, such as the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the UPC case is finalized.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Juul Labs International Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for access to written pleadings and evidence in parallel proceedings concerning patent validity. The court granted immediate access to specific documents requested by Nicoventures, recognizing its direct interest as an opponent in the EPO. However, this access was strictly conditioned: Nicoventures could not file or distribute these materials with other courts, like the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the UPC appeal concluded. This ruling highlights the Court's power to balance transparency with procedural integrity.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
In a significant decision for the LED industry, the UPC Local Division of Paris found Laser Components SAS liable for infringing Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s patent EP3404726. The court granted a permanent injunction against the sale and use of the infringing UVC LED chips across France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the respondent was ordered to provide extensive sales and distribution data, allowing the claimant to proceed with calculating full damages.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Henle Baumaschinentechnik GmbH
In a case involving infringement and revocation of EP 3 770 330 B1, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted an extension of deadlines for the claimant. The court recognized that the late provision of evidence by the defendant constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the procedural relief. This decision underscores the UPC's willingness to manage complex litigation timelines when procedural fairness is at stake.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning the confidentiality of sensitive sales and profit data submitted by Nintendo. The Court ruled on balancing the fundamental right to be heard against the protection of trade secrets, ultimately upholding the general principle of confidentiality while granting limited access to specific Claimant personnel. This case reinforces the strict obligations parties have regarding handling confidential information, especially when it originates from third-party sources.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC
This UPC procedural order in Mannheim addresses an infringement action brought by DISH Technologies and Sling TV against several defendants, including Brockwell Group. The court has not yet ruled on the merits but has meticulously outlined the complex technical and legal issues for the upcoming oral hearing. Key points include interpreting the scope of 'server' and 'bitrate' within the patent claims, clarifying whether infringement is cumulative across various streaming services, and addressing the procedural implications of the patent's impending expiration.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for protection of trade secrets between CUP&CINO and ALPINA Coffee Systems. The court successfully classified specific financial data submitted by the respondent as confidential business information under Article 58 EPC. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting sensitive commercial data during litigation, ensuring that proprietary information remains restricted to authorized parties.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Benelux BV
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the complex interplay between an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 756 767 B1. Following the parties' agreement and considering efficiency, the court opted to refer the revocation counterclaim to the Milan Central Division while allowing the infringement proceedings to continue locally. The panel also determined that a stay of the infringement case was not warranted at this preliminary stage, setting the path for parallel litigation tracks.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In a procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed the bifurcation issue in the case between Maxeon Solar and several defendants. The court opted to proceed with a joint hearing, combining the infringement action against EP 3 065 184 B1 and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision is significant as it prioritizes judicial efficiency and ensures consistency by having both validity and infringement assessed under a single, uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In a recent procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed scheduling issues in an infringement action brought by Maxell against Samsung. The court granted a request to harmonize deadlines for all defendants, setting a uniform service date and subsequent deadline for filing the Statement of Defence. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's ability to manage complex multi-defendant litigation across various jurisdictions efficiently.
Viking Arm AS v.Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB
This UPC decision records the formal closure of an infringement and revocation action concerning EP3953541. The Claimant (Viking Arm AS) withdrew its infringement claim, and the Defendants (Stanley Black & Decker entities) simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. As both parties mutually agreed to the withdrawal, the Court formally closed the proceedings without needing to rule on costs or merits.
Atlas Global Techonologies GmbH v.TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE.LTD.
Atlas Global Techonologies GmbH initiated infringement and revocation proceedings against TP-Link entities concerning EP 3 186 937. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber issued an order suspending the entire case based on a mutual agreement reached by all parties involved in the litigation. This suspension is a common procedural mechanism used to allow parties time for negotiation or settlement outside of court, effectively pausing the legal battle.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a costs determination application following an infringement and revocation proceedings involving Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH and Mammut Sports Group. The court analyzed the reasonableness of the respondent's cost claims, specifically scrutinizing how they calculated the relevant claim value for fee assessment. Ultimately, the court partially granted the claimant's request, limiting the recoverable costs to 4,866.11 EUR due to methodological errors in the respondents' calculation.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants/counterclaimants) to withdraw its revocation action against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA concerning EP4183412. This decision was reached following mutual agreement between both parties. The Court also ordered the reimbursement of 60% of court fees paid by the withdrawing parties. This case highlights how procedural agreements and party consent can lead to the swift closure of complex patent litigation.
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.