European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 34 of 54 · 1,592 total
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This order addresses a procedural dispute regarding the costs associated with public access requests to court documents within UPC proceedings. The judge-rapporteur clarified that Article 69 UPCA, which governs cost allocation, is not applicable when parties are consulted by the judge-rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. This ruling sets a clear boundary on who can seek reimbursement of legal costs in these specific procedural contexts, emphasizing that public access requests do not automatically trigger standard cost recovery mechanisms.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural hurdle in cross-border litigation: establishing good service when traditional methods fail. The applicant sought provisional measures against a defendant domiciled in China. After formal attempts via the Hague Service Convention stalled due to inaction by Chinese authorities, the Court ruled that publication of the default judgment on its website, combined with email notification, satisfied the principle of effective legal protection and constituted valid service. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners dealing with defendants in jurisdictions where judicial cooperation is slow or non-existent. It reinforces the UPC's commitment to ensuring substantive justice over strict adherence to procedural formalities.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application filed by the defendants (XSYS group) seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, consented to this change. The Court granted the request, establishing English as the official language for the main infringement action (No. ACT_46804/2024). This ruling highlights the importance of party agreement in determining procedural parameters within the UPC.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. initiated a revocation action against VMR Products LLC challenging European patent EP 3 626 092, which covers vaporizer devices (electronic cigarettes). The core argument centered on the lack of inventive step regarding features like a translucent cartomizer body. The UPC Central Division ultimately dismissed the revocation action, upholding the validity of the patent. This decision reinforces the high bar for demonstrating non-obviousness in technical fields, particularly when addressing perceived design improvements.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge concerning service of a default judgment in provisional measures proceedings involving a defendant domiciled in China. After extensive attempts at formal service via the Chinese competent authority failed due to delays and eventual refusal, the Court ruled that good service could be established through an alternative method. By publishing the decision on the UPC website and notifying the defendant by email, the Court ensured the principle of effective legal protection was upheld, allowing the default judgment to proceed.
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
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed an application for rectification concerning EP 3 065 184 B1. The court dismissed the request, finding that the original decision was accurate and did not contain any clerical mistakes or 'obvious slips.' This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of Rule 353 RoP regarding when a party can seek to amend a judicial order.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural issues concerning cost determination following a provisional measures case. The court ruled that deadlines for filing costs claims are tied to substantive decisions, not interim orders. Crucially, it affirmed that the principle allowing successful parties to claim legal costs (EPC Art. 69) applies even when no full infringement or validity proceedings have been initiated, provided the initial action was unsuccessful.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
This UPC case involved an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP3977921, related to diabetes care technology. Both the Claimant (Abbott) and the Defendants (Dexcom entities) mutually agreed to withdraw all actions. The Court formally declared the proceedings closed based on this consent, avoiding a substantive ruling on infringement or validity.
Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
In this UPC decision, Amazon sought the confidential classification and protection of sensitive commercial documents related to its licensing negotiations with Nokia. The Court partially granted the request, establishing a provisional order that specific information—such as negotiation timelines, license offers, and business models—must be treated confidentially under Article 58 EPC. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting trade secrets within litigation while maintaining transparency where possible.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case involving N.J DIFFUSION SARL and GISELA MAYER GmbH addressed a request for an on-site visual inspection of disputed wigs. Although the Court found that the requested measure was not strictly an 'experiment' under the Rules of Procedure, it ultimately rejected the request as unnecessary because detailed photographic evidence had already been submitted by the claimant. The case will proceed with the conference of directions held online.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In a case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc., the Unified Patent Court proceedings were brought for infringement and revocation of EP3977921. However, both parties mutually consented to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The UPC subsequently declared the entire proceeding closed, highlighting how procedural agreements can lead to early closure in complex patent disputes.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In this UPC case, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. initiated an infringement action against Dexcom Inc., which included a counterclaim for revocation of EP3977921. However, both parties subsequently consented to the withdrawal of all actions. The Court formally declared the proceedings closed based on this mutual agreement. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing cases to be terminated amicably before substantive rulings are made. It serves as a reminder for practitioners that case closure can occur through consent withdrawals rather than litigation outcomes.
Amazon.com, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a request by Amazon to impose additional confidentiality restrictions on documents within the ongoing appeal proceedings against Nokia. The core issue was whether new, stricter protection was needed beyond what had already been established by the Local Division in the main infringement case. The Board ultimately denied Amazon's request, finding that the existing court orders were sufficient and that Amazon's requests lacked necessary specificity regarding the information to be protected.
Sanofi Mature IP / Sanofi SA v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order addresses a corporate restructuring within the Sanofi group, specifically concerning the patent ownership of EP 2 493 466. The UPC Court accepted the request to substitute the original claimant, Sanofi Mature IP, with its successor entity, Sanofi SA. This decision ensures that the ongoing infringement actions and related counterclaims continue seamlessly under the new legal proprietor. For practitioners, this highlights the UPC's flexibility in accommodating complex corporate changes without disrupting active litigation.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Commuincation Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
In this UPC case, NEC Corporation initiated a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning EP 3 057 321. Before the written procedure concluded, the Claimant voluntarily withdrew the suit due to a contractual agreement reached with the Defendants. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed. Crucially, the court ruled that the claimant was entitled to a significant reimbursement of court fees (60%), setting a clear precedent for cost recovery in voluntary withdrawals.
De heer v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
In this UPC case, the court addressed a claim of infringement related to Mandibular Advancement Devices (MAD). The claimant sought relief against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV regarding patents covering these medical devices. The court ultimately dismissed both the literal and equivalent infringement claims. This decision reinforces established principles regarding patent scope interpretation under Article 69 EPC, particularly emphasizing that functional equivalence is necessary for an equivalence finding.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a significant revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. successfully challenged and obtained the complete revocation of European patent EP 3 430 921 B1 against Juul Labs International, Inc. The UPC Central Division ruled that the patent was invalid across eight member states, including Germany and France. This decision underscores the effectiveness of the UPC in handling complex validity challenges related to vaping technology patents. It serves as a strong precedent for patentees seeking to challenge the scope or validity of granted European patents within the unified system.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Commuincation Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
In this UPC decision, NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its patent infringement action against several TCL entities before a final judgment was rendered. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling confirmed that even upon voluntary withdrawal, specific rules apply regarding court fee reimbursement, granting NEC 60% of the fees paid.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
This decision addresses the procedural competence regarding the withdrawal of a cost determination application in an ongoing UPC case. Although the main infringement and revocation proceedings have moved to the Appeal Court, the specific procedure for determining costs remains under the jurisdiction of the court of first instance's Rapporteur. The court confirmed its original authority to grant the request to withdraw the cost claim, thereby closing that phase of the litigation.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC decision addressed an infringement claim concerning color-and-light mixing optics used in outdoor display boards. The court granted the injunction, compelling the respondent to remove the infringing products from distribution or arrange their destruction. However, the plaintiff's request for public disclosure of the ruling was rejected, emphasizing that such publication requires a strong interest that outweighs potential harm to the defendant. This case provides clear guidance on the scope of injunctive relief and the stringent requirements for court-ordered publicity in UPC proceedings.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional question: whether the Unified Patent Court can hear an independent claim for damages following a successful national infringement judgment. The court affirmed that since the damage claim is rooted in patent infringement, it falls under the scope of Article 32(1)(a) EPC. This ruling provides significant clarity and predictability for patentees seeking to enforce their rights across the UPC system.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Bhagat Textile Engineers against Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG. The core issue was whether exceptional circumstances existed to halt the enforcement of a prior infringement judgment and associated penalties. The court ruled against Bhagat, emphasizing that merely claiming parallel proceedings or 'considerable doubts' is insufficient. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC appeals.
BF exaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving NVIDIA and two German claimants (BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG). The defendants sought to change the court language from German to English, matching the patent grant language. However, the Court ultimately dismissed this request. The ruling emphasizes that while convenience for large corporations is a factor, the principle of ensuring fair access to justice for medium-sized enterprises must take precedence when weighing the interests of the parties.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Hamburg addressed complex bifurcation requests between an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP2792100. Recognizing the efficiency gains from consolidating validity arguments, the court referred the revocation counterclaim to the Central Division Paris. Crucially, the local division decided not to suspend or separate the ongoing infringement proceedings immediately, opting instead to continue them while awaiting the outcome of the parallel revocation action.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed both Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom (and affiliates) to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims regarding EP 4 087 195. The withdrawal was permitted because neither party demonstrated a legitimate interest in forcing the continuation of the litigation. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to terminate complex patent disputes by mutual consent, provided no vested interests are at stake.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Board of Appeal addressed requests to withdraw an infringement suit and associated revocation counterclaims. The Court ruled that such withdrawals are permissible during appellate proceedings as long as no final judgment has become legally binding. This decision provides clarity on the timing constraints for withdrawing claims under Rule 265 VerfO and confirms the procedural effect of withdrawal, including the refund of court fees.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by Alpinestars S.p.A. to extend its deadline for filing defenses and revocation counterclaims. The court emphasized that coordinating UPC proceedings with parallel EPO appeals can be achieved through flexible procedural measures, such as extensions, rather than resorting to a stay. This ruling reinforces the balance between judicial efficiency and ensuring all parties have full rights of defense in complex patent litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters concerning the withdrawal of a patent infringement claim and associated revocation counterclaims. The Court of Appeal confirmed that parties can withdraw their claims during the appellate phase, provided no final judgment has become legally binding. By allowing the withdrawal, the court terminated the main proceedings and granted Avago a refund of 60% of its appeal court fees. This ruling provides clarity on the timing and procedural requirements for withdrawing actions within the UPC system.
Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U.
This Procedural Order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses complex issues of confidentiality and evidence access across several parallel infringement actions involving Sanofi (Claimant) and Accord Healthcare (Respondent). The core dispute revolved around how a key witness statement (Exhibit No. D.4), containing sensitive commercial data, should be handled by the Court. The Judge issued detailed instructions to balance the need for full disclosure in litigation against the protection of trade secrets.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision involves a complex dispute over an avalanche rescue device (LVS) protected by EP 3 466 498 B1. The claimant sued the defendants for infringement while simultaneously challenging the patent's validity in Switzerland. The court issued detailed injunctions, establishing specific legal principles regarding indirect infringement when user activation is required and setting high standards for market removal measures like destruction. This case highlights the UPC's ability to handle combined actions of infringement and revocation.
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.