European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 35 of 54 · 1,592 total
Bentley Motors Limited v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Bentley Motors Limited sought to withdraw a revocation action against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399. The court granted the request, emphasizing that Rule 265(1) of the RoP does not mandate express consent from the respondent, provided they are given an opportunity to comment and do not object. This decision provides clarity on procedural requirements for withdrawing actions within the UPC framework.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding security for costs in an ongoing infringement action involving TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR and Texas Instruments. The claimant challenged the initial order, arguing that the judge-rapporteur lacked competence to issue such a binding case management order and simultaneously deny leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that since security for costs is a case management matter, only the full panel can decide on leave to appeal. Consequently, the original order was revoked, and the case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH initiated proceedings against Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH regarding infringement of its patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which covers specialized avalanche rescue transceivers (LVS). The Düsseldorf Local Chamber issued a detailed decision addressing both the infringement claims and the counterclaim for revocation. Key rulings clarified principles of indirect infringement when user activation is required and established stringent criteria for implementing product destruction or recall measures to ensure permanent cessation of infringement.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL (collectively 'Magna')
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, Valeo Electrification successfully withdrew its infringement action against Magna. The withdrawal was permitted because the main proceedings were still subject to a pending appeal and Magna provided explicit consent for the case to be closed. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to terminate litigation before a final judgment is rendered.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC decision concerns a procedural matter where Avago Technologies sought to withdraw its application for interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation regarding EP 1 770 912. The court granted the withdrawal, noting that since the initial order had not been served and the respondent was unaware of the proceedings, no active participation or hearing was required. This ruling underscores the procedural flexibility within the UPC when parties voluntarily terminate actions.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc.
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures (UPC_CFI_791/2024), Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd successfully withdrew its application after reaching an out-of-court settlement with Netgear Inc. and its affiliates. The Munich Local Division of the UPC granted the withdrawal, formally ending the interim relief proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can efficiently resolve complex patent disputes within the UPC framework, leading to the immediate release of security deposits.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL (and associated entities)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted Valeo Electrification to withdraw its infringement action against Magna. The withdrawal was facilitated by Magna's explicit consent and the absence of a final judgment in the underlying main proceedings due to an ongoing appeal. This decision highlights how parties can resolve complex litigation early through mutual agreement, even when provisional measures were previously granted.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This decision addresses the complex issue of managing a large number of auxiliary requests filed by Claimant 2 (Harvard College) in an application to amend a patent, while parallel opposition proceedings are ongoing at the EPO. The Court recognized that given the extensive validity attacks, limiting the amendments strictly is not feasible under the principle of fairness. Consequently, the proceedings were stayed pending the EPO's decision, and Harvard was instructed to consolidate its requests for submission shortly thereafter.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In the case of Valeo Electrification v. Magna PT entities, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Local Division formally closed proceedings after both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants subsequently withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This decision highlights the importance of party autonomy in UPC litigation, allowing cases to be terminated amicably even when complex patent disputes are involved.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH; Netgear Inc.; Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to withdraw its infringement claim against Netgear and simultaneously accepted the withdrawal of Netgear's counterclaim for revocation. This decision reflects a common strategic resolution in complex patent litigation, where parties opt to terminate proceedings rather than proceed to a full trial. The court formalized the termination while granting a partial refund of court fees.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to withdraw its infringement claim against Netgear and permitted Netgear to withdraw their revocation counterclaims regarding EP 3 611 989. The court confirmed that withdrawal was permissible because the prior decision had not yet attained legal force. This case highlights how parties can resolve complex UPC litigation through mutual agreement, leading to a procedural dismissal of the actions.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In a procedural decision concerning EP 3 320 604 B1, the UPC Local Division allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Valeo Electrification withdrew its patent infringement action against Magna entities, while the Defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and a license. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to the closure of complex IP litigation without a substantive ruling on validity or infringement.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
In this UPC case, Netgear Deutschland GmbH and its affiliates successfully withdrew their infringement action against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The withdrawal was based on an agreement between the parties, leading to the termination of the proceedings. Although the core dispute was settled out of court, the claimant secured a partial refund of 40% of the paid court fees from the UPC.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a cost determination proceeding initiated by Edwards Lifesciences against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. While the court found that the respondents were liable for the procedural costs totaling EUR 244,000 (including amounts agreed upon in earlier proceedings), it definitively rejected the claimant's request to have these costs paid with interest. The ruling clarifies a critical distinction within UPC procedure: while damages claims may include compensation for time value of money, standard cost reimbursement does not automatically carry an interest component unless explicitly provided by law.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application filed by ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking to overturn a default judgment in a revocation action against Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft. The core issue was whether the claimant provided sufficient justification for missing critical deadlines. The Court ruled that merely explaining the delay is insufficient; the applicant must prove the failure was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure, thereby reinforcing strict procedural compliance within the UPC system.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope of public access to court documents, specifically addressing whether pending appeals or parallel proceedings justify withholding evidence from the public register. The Court ruled that once the CFI has rendered a decision, the general interest in public access prevails, even if the initial order concerned provisional measures. This ruling significantly lowers the threshold for transparency in UPC litigation, reinforcing the principle of open justice.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
In a decision by default, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a preliminary injunction in favor of air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. The case concerned infringement of EP 3 897 305, which protects an innovative drinking device designed for retronasal aroma reception. Since the defendant failed to respond to the application, the court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering a cease and desist across all UPC Member States.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for an extension of time, rather than the merits of the underlying patent dispute. Menarini sought an extension to file its statement of response due to technical difficulties with the Case Management System (CMS). The Court dismissed the request, clarifying that automatic extensions under R.301.2 RoP apply when electronic filing is temporarily impossible, making a discretionary order superfluous.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request by Menarini to re-establish confidentiality protections for technical information during the appeal phase. The court found that these requests were redundant because the original CFI order already mandated continuous protection and restricted access to specific parties. While the formal R. 262A RoP requests were dismissed, the Court confirmed that the existing restrictions on accessing confidential documents would remain in force.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
In a significant decision by default, the UPC Local Division Munich granted an injunction in favor of air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. The case involved patent EP 3 655 341, which covers a specialized drinking device designed for retronasal aroma reception. Since the defendant failed to respond to the service of the application, the court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering an immediate cease-and-desist order across all UPC Member States.
ArcelorMittal v.Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA, XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl, E-LAIN SAS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by multiple XPENG-related entities and others to change the language of an infringement case from French (or German) to English. The court granted this application, citing fairness and convenience, noting that English was the patent's granting language and widely used among the parties. Crucially, the Claimant, ArcelorMittal, was ordered to provide translations of its Statement of Claim at its own expense. This decision sets a practical precedent regarding procedural efficiency in multinational UPC cases.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an appeal. DISH and Sling sought full reimbursement due to alleged errors in procedural instructions, but the Court ultimately granted only partial relief. The ruling confirms that even when appealing, parties are entitled to 60% fee reimbursement upon withdrawal, provided they meet the formal requirements under the Rules of Procedure.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for intervention by MediaTek, the manufacturer of the processors at issue (Dimensity). The appeal concerned a procedural dispute over access to confidential information regarding processor architecture. The court found that MediaTek possessed a direct and present legal interest in protecting this proprietary information, despite Xiaomi being the party who initially submitted it. This ruling reinforces the rights of technology owners to participate in confidentiality disputes related to their core intellectual property within UPC proceedings.
Meril Italy srl v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application for cost allocation in the context of public access to the register. The applicants sought reimbursement of costs incurred during a prior proceeding regarding their request for access. The Court ruled that because the underlying proceedings were administrative, aimed at enhancing judicial transparency rather than resolving private rights disputes, they did not constitute a 'decision on the merits'. Consequently, the application for cost recovery was dismissed.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC decision concerns the withdrawal of a counterclaim for invalidity filed by Tesla against Avago Technologies regarding EP 1 770 912. The court granted the request to withdraw, finding that since the action had not reached a final judgment and no legitimate interest was asserted by the claimant, the withdrawal was permissible under UPC Rules. Consequently, the entire proceeding was terminated.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories (and associated entities)
This UPC decision in Düsseldorf concerns the mutual withdrawal of a patent infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against various Abbott entities, alongside a corresponding counterclaim for revocation. The parties agreed to terminate all proceedings, including the application to amend the patent in suit. While the core dispute was resolved through consent, the court issued specific orders regarding the reimbursement of court fees, setting the value in dispute at EUR 4 million each.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a case involving Avago Technologies against Tesla, the claimant voluntarily withdrew its infringement lawsuit concerning EP 1 770 912. The Munich Local Division of the UPC granted this request, terminating the proceedings without prejudice to future actions. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework regarding claim withdrawal when no party has a vested interest in the outcome.
Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U.
In a key procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a complex corporate restructuring involving Sanofi. The court formally approved the substitution of Sanofi-Aventis France with its successor entity, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, in multiple ongoing infringement actions. This decision validates the principle that rights and obligations transfer seamlessly through mergers under UPC rules. It allows the substantive patent litigation to proceed without interruption despite significant changes in the claimant's corporate structure.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Limited initiated an infringement action against SharkNinja Europe and Germany concerning EP patent 2 043 492. In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Munich granted a suspension of both the main infringement proceedings and the associated counterclaim. This decision reflects a strategic pause agreed upon by both parties, allowing time for further negotiation or legal strategy before the merits of the case are addressed.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This order addressed a request by Berggren Oy, acting as a UPC representative firm, to access the full documentation of a concluded Revocation action (UPC 252/2023). The Court affirmed that once proceedings have ended, there is a general public interest in transparency and scrutiny. Consequently, the Court granted access to all written pleadings and evidence, subject only to standard redactions of personal data.
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.