European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 30 of 54 · 1,592 total
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 order, the UPC granted Promosome LLC's request to classify specific exhibits (VB 4a and VB 4b), which contain confidential license agreement terms between the parties, as confidential. The ruling establishes strict limitations on who can access this sensitive information, restricting it primarily to authorized legal representatives and their support staff. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting trade secrets within ongoing infringement actions.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement and revocation action against CUPOWER for allegedly infringing its Boost-PFC circuit patent (EP 2 011 218 B1) used in LED drivers. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision underscores the high bar required to prove infringement or successfully challenge a granted European patent within the unified system.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural decision concerning EP 4108782, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed 10x Genomics to withdraw its appeals against orders issued by the court of first instance. The case involved disputes over document submission requests made by Vizgen during an infringement action initiated by 10x. Both parties consented to the withdrawal, leading the appellate body to terminate the proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 4108782, the Court of Appeal allowed 10x Genomics to withdraw all its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division in Hamburg. Vizgen agreed to this withdrawal. This decision highlights the flexibility within the UPC framework regarding appeal withdrawals, provided no final judgment has been rendered on the underlying infringement case.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision concerns an application by 10x Genomics to withdraw its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The appeal concerned a patent infringement case involving EP 4108782, where Vizgen had requested the disclosure of specific documents from 10x. Both parties agreed to the withdrawal of the appeals. The court accepted this request, formally concluding the appellate proceedings.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses procedural motions regarding the exchange of further written pleadings in a patent infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 755 901 B1. The court ruled against both the claimant (Hartmann Packaging A/S) and the respondents (Omni-Pac GmbH). The ruling underscores strict adherence to the UPC's procedural timetable, requiring parties to utilize their allotted submissions or formally request additional pleadings under R. 36 VerfO with strong justification.
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 this complex pharmaceutical patent dispute, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a dual action involving infringement and revocation. Following unanimous requests from all parties, the Court opted to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division, citing procedural efficiency as a key factor. Crucially, however, the Local Division decided to proceed with the main infringement action itself. Furthermore, the Defendants were granted a necessary one-month extension to ensure they could address all issues related to the infringement proceedings.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited
In a significant ruling on provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal affirmed the validity and infringement likelihood of EP 2 152 073 concerning herbicide compositions. The court confirmed that the balance of interests favored granting an injunction against Sumi Agro. Furthermore, it clarified procedural aspects, specifically rejecting the requirement for Syngenta to provide security for enforcement, which is a key relief for patent holders seeking immediate protection.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC decision addressed a complex provisional measures case concerning evidence preservation for an infringement action involving hybrid generators. The court upheld the initial order allowing inspection and data seizure but made key adjustments regarding access to sensitive materials. Most significantly, the court ruled that the respondent was no longer obligated to pay the daily coercive fines previously imposed due to non-compliance with IT disclosure requirements.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural ruling concerning an infringement action, the UPC addressed the issue of invalid party representation for the claimant. Despite the respondent's request to dismiss the case due to the representative's lack of authority, the court rejected this argument. The panel ruled that while the initial representation was defective, it did not invalidate the entire proceeding. Instead, the claimant was granted 30 days to appoint a new, valid representative who would be required to ratify all prior submissions.
Applicant v.Defendant
In this procedural order, the Applicant sought to secure and preserve evidence (Saisie) against the Defendant based on a high probability of patent infringement. The court ultimately rejected the request, finding that the applicant's allegations were too vague and lacked sufficient factual detail to meet the threshold for provisional measures. The ruling also questioned the scope of the requested measures, particularly those requiring active participation from the defendant in setting up complex test environments.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted Curio Bioscience to withdraw its appeal against an earlier decision concerning security for legal costs. The court found that since 10x Genomics had not formally objected to the withdrawal request within the statutory timeframe, it could not be considered to have a legitimate interest in maintaining the proceedings. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility available under UPC rules regarding appeals and withdrawals.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the Headwater v. Samsung case sets the stage for a complex UPC trial concerning patent infringement and revocation of EP 2 391 947. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date and formally established the financial scope of the dispute, valuing the claim at €2 million and the counterclaim at €3 million. While settlement discussions were noted, the court maintained strict procedural control over evidence and arguments, particularly regarding late-filed documents and invalidity attacks.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this significant UPC revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. challenged the validity of Juul Labs International Inc.'s vaporization device patent (EP 3 504 989). While the Claimant succeeded in challenging the original scope of the patent, the Court ultimately allowed the Defendant's application to amend the claims. This decision demonstrates the complex interplay between revocation proceedings and claim amendments within the UPC framework, resulting in a modified maintenance of the patent.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge in a revocation action concerning EP 2 611 800. The original defendant, Virdia Inc., sought substitution by International N&H Denmark ApS because the latter was the true proprietor under Member State law, despite Virdia Inc. being the registered proprietor. The Court accepted this application, confirming that revocation actions must target the actual patent owner. This ruling clarifies the interplay between the 'registered proprietor' and the 'Rule 8.5 proprietor' within UPC proceedings, ensuring that litigation is properly directed against the party with enforceable rights.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance rejected Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH's request to amend its infringement action to include the Netherlands. The core issue was not patent validity or infringement itself, but whether the Claimant acted with due diligence after learning that the national part of EP 3 742 231 had been restored in the Netherlands. The Court found that the delay between becoming aware of the restoration and filing the amendment request was unreasonable, setting a clear precedent regarding procedural timeliness in UPC litigation.
Fapa Vital AG v.Valentis Baltic, UAB
This decision addresses the procedural issue of reimbursing court fees when an application for provisional measures is withdrawn. The UPC confirmed that despite a technical gap in the Rules of Procedure (RoP), the provisions governing fee reimbursement should be applied by analogy to applications, not just full actions. Since Fapa Vital AG withdrew its application before the closure of the written procedure, it was awarded 60% of its court fees back.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. initiated a revocation action against Dyson Technology Limited concerning European Patent EP 2043492 before the UPC Central Division Milan. However, both parties subsequently reached an agreement and signed a term sheet to settle the litigation. The Court formally allowed the withdrawal of the revocation action upon mutual consent, declaring the proceedings closed. This case highlights how procedural flexibility within the UPC allows for the amicable termination of complex patent disputes when settlement is reached.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. initiated a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492 held by Dyson Technology Limited before the UPC Central Division Milan. The parties subsequently reached an agreement and signed a term sheet to settle the dispute. Following this settlement, SharkNinja requested withdrawal of its action, which the court allowed. This decision highlights how amicable settlements can lead to the early closure of complex patent litigation within the UPC framework.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order from the Munich Local Division addresses complex issues arising in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 215 288. The court corrected an earlier decision regarding party substitution in the counterclaim and deferred a ruling on an application to bar proceedings (RoP362). By reserving the decision until after the main hearing, the UPC ensures that procedural rulings do not disrupt the planned unified trial schedule for both infringement and validity issues.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court rejected a request by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. to introduce evidence regarding a Chinese patent's invalidation decision into the UPC proceedings. The court found that the late submission and failure to provide the document in German prejudiced the preparation for the upcoming oral hearing. This case highlights the strict procedural requirements of the UPC, emphasizing timely submissions and adherence to the official language of the proceedings.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order addresses complex issues within a UPC infringement and revocation counterclaim case involving Heraeus and Vibrantz regarding EP 3 215 288. The court corrected previous orders concerning party substitution in the revocation proceedings. Crucially, the court deferred a decision on an application to bar the action based on prior national decisions until after the main hearing, prioritizing the smooth conduct of the overall trial.
NJ DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Court addressed a request by GISELA MAYER GmbH seeking security for costs against NJ DIFFUSION SARL. Despite concerns raised regarding NJ DIFFUSION's financial stability, the court found that the company provided sufficient documentation, including positive expert accounts and annual reports, to counter the insolvency risk claim. Consequently, the request for a cost guarantee was rejected, allowing the main infringement proceedings to continue.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a dispute over the refund percentage for court fees following the withdrawal of patent infringement claims. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought an increase from 40% to 60%, arguing that they were not properly informed about the conclusion of written proceedings. The Court upheld the initial ruling, emphasizing that despite the complexity of the case, the established framework for fee refunds was maintained. This decision reinforces the court's discretion under Rule 370.9(e) EPGVerfO to limit refunds in cases where the judicial effort expended is deemed substantial.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the scope of fee refunds when patent litigation is withdrawn. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought a 60% refund of court costs after settling its infringement case against OPPO and OROPE, arguing the complexity warranted an 'exceptional' status under Rule 370.9(e). However, the Local Division upheld the initial ruling, limiting the refund to 40%. The judgment emphasizes that while complex cases generate high workloads, this factor alone is insufficient to override the general principle of proportional fee recovery based on the stage of proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, Panasonic Holdings Corporation challenged a lower court's ruling regarding the percentage of court fee refunds after withdrawing its infringement claims against Xiaomi and OPPO. Panasonic sought an increase from 40% to 60%, arguing that procedural timing was unclear. However, the Local Division upheld the original 40% refund, emphasizing that while the case was complex, the statutory rules governing fee reduction based on withdrawal timing must be strictly applied.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This procedural order in the UPC case between Hand Held Products and Scandit AG confirms the upcoming oral hearing date for infringement proceedings related to EP 3 866 051. The court addressed several key procedural issues, including allowing a partial withdrawal of claims and setting the financial value of the entire dispute at €7.5 million. While no substantive ruling was made on infringement or revocation, the order provides clear guidelines on evidence presentation (e.g., use of PowerPoint) and the handling of delayed submissions.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
In this UPC costs case (UPC_CFI_2/2023), the court addressed procedural issues surrounding cost allocation following a summary proceeding on interim measures. The claimants successfully argued for the reimbursement of substantial legal fees (€337,431.50). Crucially, the decision established clear rules regarding the finality of costs determined in summary proceedings and reinforced strict adherence to filing deadlines under Rule 151 EPGVerfO. This ruling provides important guidance on how cost claims must be structured and pursued within the UPC framework.
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH; S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
In a significant decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Biolitec's attempt to secure an injunction against Lightguide companies concerning their laser fiber products. The court emphasized that provisional relief requires demonstrating immediate and irreparable harm that cannot wait for a full merits hearing. By dismissing the appeal, the UPC reinforced strict procedural requirements for seeking interim protection, particularly regarding the substantiation of market damage claims.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought provisional measures against Speed Care Mineral GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of its patent on clay-based hemostatic agents. The UPC Local Division in Hamburg dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to provide sufficient certainty that the Defendant's product contained a binder element as required by the patent claims. This decision highlights the high evidentiary threshold required for applicants seeking urgent relief like preliminary injunctions under the UPC framework.
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.