European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 27 of 54 · 1,592 total
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.Soltech Energy GbR
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed issues of service on defendants. The Court confirmed that despite one defendant failing to collect a registered letter notification for two weeks and subsequently refusing acceptance, the statement of claim was deemed validly served according to Rule 271.6.b RoP. This ruling ensures procedural efficiency by establishing a clear date of service, allowing the infringement case against Soltech Energy GbR to move forward.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a costs determination application filed by the defendants following a complex infringement and revocation proceeding. Although the initial lawsuit resulted in the patent being declared invalid in certain territories, the defendants subsequently sought to recover substantial legal costs from the claimant. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected this claim, finding that the application was submitted too late according to the strict one-month deadline set out in the Rules of Procedure.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 152 073, the UPC Local Division Munich granted Syngenta Limited's request to amend its claim to include territories outside the core UPC jurisdiction (Poland, Czech Republic, and UK). This decision addresses the legal uncertainty created by recent ECJ rulings regarding infringement in non-UPC states. The court determined that Syngenta was not required to make this amendment earlier due to the evolving legal landscape, allowing the main infringement and revocation proceedings to proceed across these expanded territories.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
Ona Patents SL initiated infringement proceedings against Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, which included a counterclaim for revocation. In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division decided to proceed with a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. This decision streamlines the process by ensuring that validity and infringement are assessed under a single, uniform interpretation of the patent by the same judicial panel.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH; Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.; Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich relates to an ongoing infringement action involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril entities concerning European patent EP 3669828. The claimant sought an authentic paper copy of a prior decision for enforcement purposes, which was granted by the court. This ruling is significant as it streamlines the administrative process necessary to move from judgment to execution within the UPC framework.
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 concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, the UPC addressed a request by several defendants to extend the confidentiality of their financial data (revenue and sales figures). The court partially granted this request, maintaining secrecy for specific green-shaded numbers in existing submissions. However, it firmly rejected the defendants' attempt to make the protection vague and applicable to all future filings, setting a clear boundary on how trade secret protections can be extended during litigation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed the continuation of a complex infringement case involving 10x Genomics and Bruker. After significant delays and disputes over the number of auxiliary requests filed by one claimant, the Court ruled that the proceedings should immediately continue. The decision highlighted the importance of balancing proportionality with the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, especially when procedural hurdles are resolved.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer SA, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer Oy, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer B.V., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Pfizer Service Company S.r.l.
In a case involving GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and various Pfizer entities, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the Claimant to withdraw its patent infringement action against the Defendants. This decision followed the mutual agreement of both parties to terminate the proceedings. Crucially, the court also ruled to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the substantial court fees paid during the litigation. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can lead to swift resolution in UPC actions.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy, TGI Sport Virtual Limited, Supponor SASU, TGI Sport Italia S.r.l., Supponor España SL (jointly referred to as TGI)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural motions concerning the amendment of claims and the addition of a defendant in an infringement action. The court upheld the Local Division's decision to allow AIM Sport Development AG to amend its claim and add TGI UK as a party, despite objections from the defendants (TGI). The ruling emphasizes the balance between claimant's needs for comprehensive relief and procedural efficiency, confirming that such amendments are permissible if they do not unduly hinder the defense.
Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of a counterclaim for patent revocation filed by Ericsson against Motorola. Following an initial infringement action, Ericsson sought to withdraw its revocation claim and associated appeal after both parties agreed that there was no legitimate interest in the court proceeding. The Court granted the withdrawal based on the respondent's consent, effectively closing the case.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order in the EOFLOW v. Insulet UPC case marks a significant step toward trial preparation. The Court closed the written phase and scheduled an Interim Conference to focus on claim construction, particularly regarding the term 'pass through'. Furthermore, the Court strictly enforced rules of evidence by deeming US patent '159 inadmissible, emphasizing the need for parties to consolidate their arguments early in UPC proceedings.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This Düsseldorf Local Division decision addresses complex issues in a patent infringement and revocation case involving vehicle frames made from foam resin. The court provided key guidance on interpreting 'product-by-process' claims, emphasizing that the technical properties of the resulting product are paramount to claim scope. Additionally, the ruling clarifies the jurisdictional approach to compensation claims, noting that while the UPC can handle financial damages, claimants must address varying national requirements for such compensation.
Aliud Pharma GmbH v.Novartis AG
In a procedural matter concerning document access, the UPC granted Aliud Pharma GmbH's request to view confidential documents from ACCORD Healthcare and Novartis AG. The Court provided clear guidance on GDPR compliance in digital proceedings, specifically addressing the scope of protection for digital signatures and company email addresses. This decision clarifies how parties must redact personal data when sharing evidence within the UPC framework.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG seeking to correct errors in a prior judgment. The claimant successfully argued for the removal of specific phrasing ('direkt oder indirekt') from several claims due to clerical mistakes made during drafting. However, the request to formally add all participating counsel was denied, setting clear boundaries on what constitutes an 'obvious inaccuracy' under UPC procedural rules.
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.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim addressed a request by multiple defendant groups (TCL, Hisense, and LG) to split their proceedings due to concerns over disclosing sensitive supply chain information. The Court rejected these requests, holding that conflicts arising from shared counsel must be managed internally by the parties through confidentiality agreements. This decision reinforces the principle of unified litigation in UPC cases unless a clear legal basis for separation is established.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most procedural applications, effectively closing related workflows. Crucially, despite dismissing the main cost decision, the Judge issued a specific protective measure, ordering both Edwards Lifesciences and Erik Krahbichler not to disclose Meril's marked confidential data.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural UPC case concerning a patent infringement action involving EP 2 401 365, the Court addressed the request for security for costs. The Defendants successfully convinced the Court to order the Claimant to provide EUR 1.5 million in security, which was equally distributed between two groups of defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer). Crucially, while granting the security requirement, the Court dismissed the premature demand for a decision by default under Rule 355 RoP, maintaining procedural integrity.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a procedural application concerning public access to court documents in the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_135/2024). The claimant sought extensive access to all filed exhibits and pleadings. The Court partially granted this request, allowing access to specific redacted versions of key documents while rejecting broader requests for further redaction or disclosure.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril Life Sciences addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most pending applications but issued a specific protective measure regarding sensitive legal billing details. This decision highlights the practical application of confidentiality rules (Rule 262A RoP) in complex litigation, particularly concerning attorney-client privilege and fee structures.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In this procedural matter concerning a patent infringement action involving EP 2 401 365, the UPC Court addressed the request for security for costs. The Claimant, Promosome LLC, was ordered to deposit EUR 1.5 million to cover potential legal expenses of the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer group). Crucially, while the court granted the security requirement based on party agreement, it firmly rejected the premature demand by the Defendants for a default judgment under Rule 355 RoP, maintaining procedural integrity.
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.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.; Alpinestars Research S.p.A.; Motocard Bike S.l.
Dainese S.p.A. sought leave to limit its infringement claims from two patents (EP4072364 and EP3498117) after an adverse EPO decision restricted the scope of one patent. The UPC Milan Local Division granted this request unconditionally, confirming that a limitation of claim is a valid form of case amendment under Rule 263(3) RoP. This ruling clarifies that when a claimant limits its claims rather than withdrawing the entire action, the proceedings continue against the defendant regarding the remaining patents, and cost allocation is deferred until the final judgment.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application by Dainese S.p.A. to limit its claims in an infringement action, specifically dropping one patent (EP'117) while maintaining another (EP'364). The court ruled that since the limitation was unconditional and only involved reducing the scope of the claim rather than withdrawing the entire case, Rule 263(3) RoP applied. This confirms that patentees can unilaterally limit their claims without penalty under this rule, ensuring procedural flexibility while deferring cost allocation until the main proceedings.
Asustek Computer Inc. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This UPC decision addressed a cost application following the dismissal of an infringement preliminary injunction filed by Ericsson against AsusTek, Arvato, and Digital River. The Court ruled that while general legal costs should be assessed as part of the main action to uphold proportionality and prevent double recovery, travel expenses specific to the PI proceedings could be awarded if properly substantiated. This decision provides clarity on how cost assessments interact between preliminary measures and subsequent merits actions under the UPC framework.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC; DIGITAL RIVER IRELAND LTD.
Ericsson initiated an infringement action against AsusTek and Digital River concerning EP 2 819 131 B1. Due to Digital River's insolvency, Ericsson sought leave to withdraw the claim against that defendant. The UPC Court granted this partial withdrawal, allowing the main case to proceed solely against AsusTek. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility of the UPC in managing cases involving insolvent parties while maintaining fairness.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH; Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
In a significant preliminary objection ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim rejected arguments raised by Samsung Electronics challenging its jurisdiction and the validity of the patent assignment. The court held that complex issues concerning ownership and temporal scope must be addressed during the main infringement proceedings, not at the preliminary stage. This decision allows the infringement action to proceed, paving the way for a full examination of the merits and the contested legal arguments regarding the opt-out withdrawal.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences sued Meril entities for infringing its prosthetic heart valve patent (EP 3 669 828 B2). The UPC Local Division Munich issued a comprehensive decision, granting provisional damages of EUR 663,000 and ordering the defendants to cease infringement. Beyond the merits, the court provided important procedural guidance on suing multiple related entities under UPCA rules and applying EPO's problem-solution approach in litigation.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al.
In this UPC case, Promosome LLC sought to compel BioNTech and its affiliates to produce detailed raw data and experimental methods used in an expert report related to patent infringement. The Defendants argued that access to this data was necessary for them to properly defend against the infringement claims. However, the Court rejected the request, emphasizing that the defendants failed to specify concrete facts or evidence they wished to contest. This decision reinforces the high threshold required for a Rule 190 request, even when made by a defendant.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al. (Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich rejected a request by major pharmaceutical companies (BioNTech and Pfizer group) to compel their opponent, Promosome LLC, to disclose detailed raw data from expert reports. The Defendants argued that they needed access to this data to properly defend against infringement claims related to mRNA technology for SARS-CoV-2. The Court ruled that the request lacked specificity regarding contested facts and reiterated that parties are generally free to determine their own supporting evidence.
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.
In a key procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected preliminary objections raised by major electronics manufacturers (Hisense, TCL, LG) against Corning Incorporated. The court affirmed its jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, holding that local infringing acts in Germany are sufficient to establish competence, even without proving a direct commercial relationship between the claimant and all defendants. This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings to proceed.
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.