European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 54 · 1,592 total
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for a rehearing filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against Microsoft Corporation. Suinno argued that the prior decisions were based on fundamental procedural defects, warranting a re-opening of the infringement proceedings. The Court firmly rejected this claim, emphasizing that a rehearing is not a regular appeal but an extraordinary remedy reserved only for truly intolerable procedural flaws. The ruling reinforces the principle of legal certainty in UPC proceedings, making it clear that parties must raise all relevant objections during the initial stages and appeals, rather than attempting to circumvent finality through applications for rehearing.
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a legal representative firm, seeking public access to documents from pending infringement proceedings (Boehringer v. Zentiva). The court established strict criteria for such requests, emphasizing that they must be highly specified and not based on relevance criteria set by the applicant. While acknowledging the general interest in transparency, the Court ultimately granted limited access only to specific redacted pleadings, balancing this against the need to protect sensitive commercial information.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
In a significant revocation action, TCL EUROPE SAS challenged the validity of EP 3 296 274, which relates to fining boroalumino silicate glasses used in flat panel displays. The UPC Central Division dismissed the revocation request, upholding the patent's validity. The court ruled that the claims were sufficiently disclosed and did not suffer from lack of novelty or inventive step, thereby reinforcing the strict requirements for challenging granted patents within the UPC framework.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim found IPG Laser GmbH liable for infringing TRUMPF Laser UK Limited's patent covering advanced fiber laser technology with adjustable beam profiles (YLS-AMB series). The court granted an injunction and established liability for damages dating back to December 2021. While the infringement claim was successful, the respondent's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed.
Gowling WLG v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited (jointly 'Sumi Agro')
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for public access to case files, specifically concerning the scope and specificity required when requesting documents. Gowling WLG sought access to various pleadings from an appeal proceeding (UPC_CoA_523/2024). The court partially granted the request, allowing access to specified written submissions after redaction of personal data. However, the broad and non-specific nature of the exhibit request was rejected, setting a clear procedural boundary for document disclosure in UPC proceedings.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
In this UPC case, Messerle GmbH sued Sabert Corporation Europe S.A. for infringement and simultaneously filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 705 415 B1, which covers specialized food packaging. The court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. Beyond the substantive outcome, the decision highlighted critical procedural requirements within the UPC system, particularly concerning the timely presentation of evidence and arguments.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
In this UPC case concerning food packaging (EP 3 705 415 B1), the court dismissed both the infringement action brought by Messerle GmbH and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Sabert Corporation Europe S.A. The decision highlighted critical procedural requirements under the UPC, stressing that parties must present their full factual case and evidence as early as possible to avoid challenges regarding timeliness. This ruling serves as a strong reminder to patent practitioners about the strict evidentiary standards required in front-loaded litigation.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In this UPC decision, the Court of First Instance addressed a request by Wizart Inc. to impose security for legal costs on Leap Tools Inc., citing the latter's Canadian base and estimated revenue. The court ultimately rejected the motion, emphasizing that simply being non-EU or having moderate revenue is not enough to establish an undue burden of enforcement. Practitioners should note that applicants seeking security must provide detailed evidence regarding foreign law recognition and enforceability, rather than relying on general nationality arguments.
Gowling WLG v.Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France-Viatris Santé
This procedural order addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a third-party firm of UPC representatives, seeking access to the case file in an ongoing provisional measures dispute between Merz and Viatris. The Court balanced the need for transparency with the protection of confidential information. Access was granted selectively, allowing the applicant to review extracts relevant to the legal issue of 'unreasonable delay,' while ensuring personal data was anonymized.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling on security for costs, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned an order requiring Syntorr LP to provide a €2 million bank guarantee against Arthrex companies. The court found that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance, which included an anti-avoidance endorsement and was issued by an EU-licensed insurer, provided adequate financial protection. This decision provides important clarity on the acceptance of alternative security mechanisms in UPC proceedings, particularly for SMEs.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG; Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
In a complex dispute involving EP 3 805 415, the UPC Local Court of Düsseldorf issued an interim procedural order concerning the protection of confidential information. The defendants sought to classify various internal reports and supplier data as trade secrets, while the claimant objected to this classification. This ruling establishes strict rules for handling sensitive documents during litigation, including access limitations, confidentiality obligations, and potential penalties for breaches.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Guardant Health against Sophia Genetics concerning a provisional measures proceeding. Guardant sought to suspend the interim award of EUR 400,000 in costs granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI). The court ultimately rejected this request, holding that the appeal lacked the necessary exceptional circumstances to override the general rule that appeals do not have suspensive effect. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC proceedings.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning procedural fairness in the UPC, the Court of Appeal addressed an application for security for costs. The court held that if a claimant holds comprehensive litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement (AAE) from an EU insurer, this coverage is sufficient to mitigate the risk of non-recoverable legal costs. This decision provides substantial relief to SMEs and claimants by establishing that financial solvency can be demonstrated through robust insurance rather than solely relying on bank guarantees.
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
In this complex UPC case involving Corning Incorporated against multiple defendants, the Court of First Instance permitted a partial withdrawal of the infringement action. The claimant agreed to close the proceedings against two specific defendants (Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and Hisense Europe Holding GmbH), while the main suit continued against the remaining TCL entities. Concurrently, the counterclaim for revocation filed by these same parties was also withdrawn, leading to a proportional reimbursement of court fees.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of appeals in a dispute between Samsung Bioepis and Alexion Pharmaceuticals regarding EP 3 167 888. The case, which had previously involved provisional measures and cost disputes, was ultimately closed when both parties agreed to withdraw their respective applications for leave to appeal. The court confirmed that consent from the opposing party negates any legitimate interest in the continuation of the proceedings.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
This Court of Appeal decision addressed an application by Sanofi and Regeneron seeking suspensive effect on a ruling that rejected their request for patent revocation. The court ruled against the applicants, emphasizing that applications for rehearing do not inherently possess suspensive effect under UPC rules. The decision underscores the high threshold required to suspend proceedings based on procedural defects in the UPC.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al
In this procedural order, the UPC CFI addressed applications regarding claim amendments and late-filed evidence in a high-stakes biotech dispute between GSK and Moderna. The court granted GSK's request to amend its claims to cover new vaccine variants like mNEXSPIKE, recognizing the evolving nature of the technology. Simultaneously, the court rejected Moderna’s attempt to exclude crucial supporting arguments and exhibits from the proceedings, affirming the claimant's right to respond fully to the defense.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-Link Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-Link Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal regarding the public access to confidential documents submitted in underlying infringement and revocation proceedings involving Huawei and TP-Link. The court ultimately rejected Huawei's attempt to block document disclosure, upholding the initial order that allowed TP-Link limited access to redacted versions of the files. This ruling reinforces the balance between the public right of access under the EPC and the need to protect sensitive commercial information in UPC litigation.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd et autres sociétés du groupe Bosch
In this preliminary ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed objections raised by various Bosch entities challenging its internal jurisdiction over a patent infringement action brought by Valeo. Bosch argued that because the alleged infringing products did not apply to all defendants, the case should be transferred to another division (Düsseldorf). The court rejected these objections, clarifying that Article 33.1 b/ AJUB only requires the infringement to relate to the same patent among multiple defendants, regardless of product identity across all parties. This ruling clears the path for the merits phase of the infringement claim.
bioMérieux UK Limited, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural applications concerning a patent dispute involving bioMérieux and Labrador Diagnostics. The Appellants sought to stay the proceedings based on pending EPO opposition actions and requested an extension of their appeal deadline to align with potential infringement appeals. The court firmly rejected both requests, reiterating the principle that extensions must be exceptional and noting that existing UPC rules provide efficient mechanisms for aligning parallel proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This UPC appellate decision involved a complex interplay between patent infringement and revocation proceedings. Although the respondent successfully argued for the invalidity of EP 2 548 648, leading to the dismissal of the infringement claim, the court still awarded the claimant a lump-sum damages payment of €20,000. The ruling also provided important procedural guidance on when an appellate court must render a final judgment in both revocation and infringement cases following an appeal.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH
In a case involving ETRI against Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and associated defendants, the UPC Court of First Instance permitted the withdrawal of the infringement action. This decision followed a settlement reached between the parties, leading to the closure of the proceedings. While all parties agreed to bear their own costs, the court specifically ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the initial court fees to ETRI.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd.
This interim conference decision in the Pirelli v. Sichuan Yuanxing case sets the stage for a complex patent dispute involving tire technology. The court addressed procedural issues, including the admissibility of evidence and preliminary objections from the defendant. Crucially, the parties agreed to conduct an on-site technical examination of seized product samples during the upcoming oral hearing. This decision highlights the UPC's practical approach to evidence gathering in infringement cases.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V., Solvest Participatie V B.V., Solvest Participatie VI B.V., Solvest Participatie VII B.V., Solvink B.V., De Kleine Beuk B.V., Hemtech d.o.o.
This procedural order addressed the defendants' application for a panel review against the rejection of their preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and competence. The Court upheld the initial finding that Honeywell had sufficiently asserted infringement within Germany to maintain the case before the Mannheim Local Division. While the defendants argued for narrow interpretation of UPC jurisdiction, the court clarified that the merits of the infringement claim would be decided later, allowing the case to proceed.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
Align Technology sought provisional measures against the Angelalign group regarding alleged infringement of its clear aligner orthodontic patent (EP 4 346 690 B1). The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a complex order, granting a preliminary injunction and imposing significant penalty payments on several defendants. While the court established the validity concerns were not automatically overcome by the applicant's claims, it found grounds for provisional relief against specific infringing parties. This decision highlights the delicate balance courts must strike when balancing patent holder rights with defendant challenges during urgent interim proceedings in the UPC.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC allowed Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited to withdraw its patent infringement lawsuit against Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties, indicating that an out-of-court settlement had been reached. This case highlights how procedural flexibility in the UPC allows for the termination of litigation when parties reach a consensual resolution.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH a. o.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division allowed Maxeon Solar to withdraw its infringement action against Aiko Energy and related parties, while simultaneously allowing the Defendants to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. Although the case was settled by mutual agreement, the Court firmly rejected all requests for reimbursement of court fees from both sides. This ruling underscores that procedural agreements must align with strict UPC rules regarding timing and necessity, even in cases of amicable settlement.
Valeo Systemes D’essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS et autres (ROBERT BOSCH GROUP)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of an appeal against a preliminary order issued by the Trial Division Judge-Rapporteur. The case, involving Valeo and Robert Bosch concerning EP 2671766, centered on whether the specific type of procedural ruling fell under the scope of appeal defined in the UPC Agreement (AJUB). The Court ultimately ruled that the appeal was admissible, providing important guidance on how parties can challenge non-final, preliminary orders within the UPC framework.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning a damages claim related to aluminum production technology, the court ultimately dismissed the claimant's request for compensation. However, the ruling provided significant commentary on the assessment of lost profits under the UPC framework, particularly when dealing with price reductions and the reasonableness of offers. The case highlights the complex interplay between national law (German) and the Unified Patent Court Agreement regarding damages claims.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this UPC decision, the Court addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 686 683 B1, which covers developer replenishing systems. While the core claims were dismissed, the ruling provided significant guidance on procedural fairness. The court held that defendants who use their websites to mislead the public about patent status may be compelled by Article 80 UPCA to publish the operative parts of the judgment themselves.
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.