European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 31 of 54 · 1,592 total
Hanshow Technology Co, Ltd v.VusionGroup SA
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural disputes regarding costs and the validity of an appeal against a cost determination. VusionGroup argued that Hanshow failed to meet formal requirements for filing the appeal (lack of separate grounds/statement) and defaulted on court fees. The Court ruled in favor of Hanshow, confirming that the initial application for admission contained sufficient detail, thus satisfying procedural requirements for appeals concerning costs. This decision clarifies the flexible nature of procedural rules when challenging cost orders within the UPC.
CRETES NV v.HYLER BV
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Brussels addressed a request by CRETES NV to exclude specific new arguments and claims introduced by HYLER BV into ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings. The Court partially granted the request, agreeing to exclude detailed non-infringement arguments and related documents from consideration. This ruling highlights the court's power to manage case complexity and maintain procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG, Himson Engineering Private Limited
This UPC decision addressed a public access application filed by Bhagat Textile Engineers seeking access to documents in an infringement and revocation action. The court ultimately denied the access request, emphasizing that while transparency is important, it must be balanced against the integrity of the judicial process and the procedural rights of the parties involved. The ruling highlights the high bar for 'public interest' when a party seeks information primarily to support its own litigation strategy.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this procedural order concerning enforcement security, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. The Applicant had initially deposited EUR 2 million to secure a preliminary injunction but subsequently obtained and provided an equivalent bank guarantee. The Court found that the Applicant had a legitimate interest in exchanging the deposit for the bank guarantee due to logistical and economic reasons. Consequently, the Court ordered the repayment of the original security deposit.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd
This UPC decision addressed an application for provisional measures (Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction) filed by Nokia against Sunmi Technology in the context of a dispute involving standard essential patents (SEPs). The court provided detailed legal guidance on when infringement is threatened and how Anti-Suit Injunctions are treated under the UPC framework. While the specific request for injunction was ultimately dismissed, the ruling offers significant clarity to practitioners regarding the threshold for provisional measures and the nature of rights violations in complex cross-border disputes.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
This UPC decision confirms a settlement between Dyson Technology Limited and SharkNinja. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims—the infringement action by Dyson and the revocation counterclaim by SharkNinja. The court accepted this agreement, terminating both proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can efficiently resolve complex patent disputes within the UPC framework.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. sued Cisco Systems for infringing its European patent EP2201740, which covers methods for fast packet processing in wireless networks aimed at reducing latency. The case also involved a counterclaim by the defendants challenging the validity of the patent. The UPC Local Chamber ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim. This decision underscores the importance of comprehensive patent interpretation under Article 69 EPC when assessing complex networking technologies.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich terminated both an infringement action brought by Dyson Technology Limited and a counterclaim for patent invalidity filed by SharkNinja. The termination was based on a mutual agreement between the parties to withdraw all claims in both proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can lead to swift procedural closure within the UPC framework.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S Machinery B.V.
This procedural order addressed the scope of access to an expert's report following a seizure of documents related to alleged patent infringement (EP4171996). The Court balanced the need for the claimant to assess its case against the defendant's interests in confidentiality. By finding that the Defendant had not raised objections and the information was limited, the UPC granted access to specific employees of the claimant, allowing them to evaluate potential infringement and determine next steps.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
In this procedural matter before the UPC Court of Appeal, Network System Technologies LLC sought the release of substantial security deposits previously ordered by the Munich Local Division. The security had been required to cover potential legal costs related to infringement proceedings against Volkswagen AG. Crucially, NTS subsequently withdrew its infringement actions at the lower court level. The Court of Appeal agreed that with the withdrawal of the main claims, the basis for maintaining the security vanished. This decision provides a clear procedural precedent regarding the timely release of funds when underlying litigation is terminated by the claimant.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of infringement actions. Network System Technologies LLC had deposited substantial funds to cover legal costs incurred by Audi AG during the proceedings. Since NTS subsequently withdrew its claims and closed the case at the Munich Local Division, the Court of Appeal granted the application for the full return of these security amounts. This ruling provides clarity on the procedural mechanism for releasing financial guarantees when litigation concludes prematurely.
Sodastream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
This UPC Court of Appeal order concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Aarke AB against a finding of infringement made by the CFI. The court permitted the withdrawal because the claimant, Sodastream Industries Ltd., did not object to the request. While Aarke was deemed the unsuccessful party and liable for costs, the proceedings were closed upon the successful withdrawal.
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 this procedural order concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, the UPC Local Division addressed a request for an extension of time periods. The Court balanced the principle of strict adherence to statutory deadlines against practical realities, specifically noting mutual holiday absences in Europe and China. Although the main request for three weeks was denied, the court granted a one-week extension to ensure procedural fairness across all defendants involved in the infringement action.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
In a procedural ruling within the UPC Local Division, the court addressed Chainzone Technology's request for access to case files related to EP2643717. Despite initial delays and considerations regarding ongoing proceedings, the court ultimately granted the requested file access. This decision underscores the importance of transparency in UPC proceedings, even when preliminary measures like evidence preservation are involved.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
In this UPC case, SWARCO FUTURIT sought evidence preservation regarding alleged patent infringement by Yunex GmbH concerning specialized collection optics used in LED display panels. The court ultimately dismissed the application because of procedural actions taken by the respondent, making further investigation unnecessary. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements within the UPC framework for preliminary measures like evidence preservation.
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
This procedural order addressed POSCO's request to access confidential pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against the XPENG group. POSCO sought access to inform its parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO regarding patent EP3290200, which is central to both actions. The Court ultimately granted limited access, recognizing that claim interpretation must be consistent across both infringement and revocation proceedings, while maintaining confidentiality for sensitive technical exhibits.
Imbox Protection A/S v.Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB
This UPC case involved an application to preserve evidence concerning the product EXPRO HUB. Although the Applicant ultimately withdrew its request for preservation measures, the Court made significant rulings regarding costs and confidentiality. The court confirmed that legal cost ceilings apply jointly across multiple defendants in such proceedings. Crucially, it also imposed strict restrictions on the use of confidential information shared by the Defendants, setting a precedent for protecting trade secrets even when initial applications fail.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
This UPC order addresses procedural rectifications requested by Meril GmbH in the infringement case concerning Edwards Lifesciences' heart valve patent (EP 3 646 825). The defendants sought corrections to technical descriptions, jurisdictional statements, and references to prior art/expert opinions within the original decision. The court accepted several of these amendments, ensuring accuracy in the record while maintaining the ongoing nature of the dispute.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This UPC procedural order sets the stage for a complex infringement case involving advanced electronic components. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd sued Laser Components SAS over patent EP3404726, focusing on specific electrode structures in PKB chips. The court confirmed key legal and factual disputes, including the interpretation of technical terms and the weight given to expert analysis. The parties have now moved into the oral hearing phase scheduled for March 13, 2025.
Per Aarsleff A/S v.IMS Robotics GmbH and IMS Robotics Nordic A/S
In a procedural decision concerning EP 2 129 956, the Unified Patent Court allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This case highlights how UPC proceedings can be concluded amicably through mutual consent, even when complex actions are involved. Practitioners should note that while the main dispute was dropped, the court still managed the procedural aspects, including setting the value in dispute and ordering partial reimbursement of court fees.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
In a revocation action concerning EP3 822 805 B1, AYLO PREMIUM LTD sought security for legal costs from DISH Technologies L.L.C., citing high insolvency risks within the Defendant's corporate group. However, the UPC Central Division rejected this request. The Court found that the Defendant provided sufficient evidence of its solvency, including a declaration from EchoStar undertaking to cover potential costs. This decision highlights how financial stability and supporting declarations can influence procedural rulings in complex patent litigation.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation
This procedural order addressed a claim for cost reimbursement filed by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. following the rejection of its preliminary injunction application against Insulet Corporation. The Court ruled that because the underlying patent litigation was proceeding to the merits, costs related to the initial PI phase could not be settled separately. The ruling reinforces the principle that cost assessment must align with the final outcome of the entire case, preventing fragmented financial assessments in complex IP disputes.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation
This UPC procedural order addressed a claim for cost reimbursement filed by EOFLOW following the rejection of its preliminary injunction application against INSULET. The Court ruled that since the underlying infringement case on the merits was still pending, costs could not be awarded based solely on the PI outcome. The ruling reinforces the principle that in complex patent litigation, particularly when an interim measure is followed by a full trial, cost assessment must wait until the final judgment.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal sided with Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., granting an injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The court set aside the initial CFI decision which had found potential added matter in the patent claims. This case highlights the high bar for obtaining preliminary relief while also providing clarity on how general injunctions can be justified based on a single type of infringement, making it crucial reading for medical device IP practitioners.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Eurobio Scientific
In this UPC case, GXD-Bio Corporation sued Myriad Genetics and others for alleged infringement of EP 3 346 403. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence to hear claims related to acts predating the claimant's registration as proprietor. The Judge-rapporteur rejected this objection, affirming the UPC's subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement actions. This ruling clarifies that standing issues are matters of merit and not grounds for excluding the case at the preliminary stage.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
In a procedural order issued on February 12, 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC established detailed confidentiality rules for sensitive information exchanged between Ona Patents SL and Apple Inc. The ruling specifically classified certain unredacted documents as confidential under Article 58 UPCA. This decision highlights the court's proactive role in protecting trade secrets during high-stakes patent litigation involving major tech players.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
Syngenta Limited initiated an infringement action against Sumi Agro entities concerning European patent EP 2 152 073, which relates to crop protection technology. The Court of First Instance in Munich issued a procedural order setting the schedule for the case. Both parties are summoned to participate in the Interim Conference and the subsequent Oral Hearing, where the core issues of infringement and potential revocation will be debated.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the scope of confidential information protection in an infringement case involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi. The court overturned a previous decision that denied access to Daedalus's US attorneys, recognizing their trustworthiness and necessity for effective litigation. This decision clarifies the boundaries of R. 262A RoP, confirming that professional assistants outside the strict definition of UPC representatives can be granted necessary access.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Respondent 1 / SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a critical procedural issue concerning representation before the court. The Court ruled that self-representation is invalid for lawyers and European Patent Attorneys when they are parties to the case, reinforcing strict due process requirements. Additionally, it clarified limitations on corporate representatives acting for legal entities if they lack independence. Consequently, the Court did not dismiss the access request but instead granted a 14-day grace period for the respondents to appoint proper authorized counsel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation before the court. The ruling firmly establishes that self-representation is invalid for lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are parties to the proceedings. Additionally, it reinforces the principle that corporate representatives holding high-level management roles cannot represent their companies due to independence requirements. The court provided a temporary grace period of 14 days for the involved parties to rectify these procedural defects by appointing proper legal counsel.
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.