European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 37 of 67 · 2,007 total
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics Sarl v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH
This case concerns a revocation action and counterclaims for revocation of European Patent EP 4 074 373, titled 'MRI-SAFE DISK MAGNET FOR IMPLANTS,' owned by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH. Advanced Bionics AG filed the revocation action, while Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl filed counterclaims for revocation, challenging the patent on grounds of added subject matter, lack of inventive step, and insufficiency of disclosure. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended according to Auxiliary Request 0a, with costs allocated 70% to the Claimants/Counterclaimants and 30% to the Defendant.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This order concerns three consolidated patent infringement actions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court. The parties reached a settlement and jointly applied for the withdrawal of all claims and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The court granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning two related proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The court granted a short extension of time limits until December 27, 2024 for the plaintiff's representative to file the reply to the infringement action and the defense to the nullity counterclaim, based on preliminary substantiation of health-related impairments of the responsible attorney. The plaintiff's representative was ordered to further substantiate the health impairments within 20 days.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning two related proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The court granted a further extension of deadlines for the plaintiff's representative to file a reply to the infringement action and a defense to the counterclaim, based on the health-related incapacity of the responsible attorney. The deadlines were extended from December 23, 2024 to December 27, 2024, subject to further substantiation of the health impairments.
Insulet Corporation v.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (UPC_CFI_380/2024)
This procedural order concerns an application for costs filed by Insulet Corporation against Menarini Diagnostics following the rejection of Menarini's intervention request in provisional measures proceedings. The Central Division Milan ruled that Insulet, as the successful party opposing the intervention, was entitled to recover its legal costs from Menarini, ordering Menarini to pay €1,764 by 8 January 2025.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patents Nos. 2 197 132, 3 024 163, and 2 584 854. The parties agreed to withdraw their respective actions and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and granted a 40 percent partial reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This order concerns procedural matters following the Local Chamber Munich's August 30, 2024 decision invalidating European Patent No. 1 838 002 and dismissing the infringement action. After Avago filed an appeal and Tesla filed a cost determination application, both parties sought to withdraw their respective applications. The court granted the withdrawal of the cost determination application and ordered each party to bear their own costs in that proceeding.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Microsoft Corporation filed an application before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court seeking protection of confidential information under Rule 262 RoP regarding Exhibit BP 01, a settlement offer document. The court granted the application, ruling that while the document was already known to Suinno and did not require restriction of access between the parties under Rule 262A RoP, its original confidential version should not be available to the public due to the confidential nature of certain information contained therein.
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 is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing a request by Defendants 3, 5 to 8 (Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, and Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico) to classify certain information as confidential. The court found that while the formal requirements of R. 262A.3 RoP were not met, the request under R. 262.2 RoP was admissible. The court classified the green-shaded passages in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, along with Exhibits Aff3 and Aff4, as confidential trade secrets relating to revenue, profit, and sales figures of Defendants 7 and 8.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
TIRU, holder of European Patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration installation and associated process, filed an ex parte request before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division of Paris) for the preservation of evidence and a site inspection against VALINEA ENERGIE. TIRU alleged that a furnace supplied by MAGUIN to VALINEA's Montbéliard energy recovery plant reproduced the patented invention. The court granted the requested measures, ordering a detailed description, seizure of technical documentation, and digital evidence preservation, subject to a €10,000 security deposit.
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 is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court granted confidentiality protection for green-shaded financial information (revenue, profit, and sales figures) submitted by Defendants 1, 2, and 4 in their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, while rejecting the request for protection of grey-shaded technical information that had already been submitted in parallel proceedings before the District Court of Mannheim without confidentiality measures.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
TIRU, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration installation, sought an ex parte order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court for the preservation of evidence and site inspection against MAGUIN SAS. TIRU alleged that MAGUIN had supplied a furnace to VALINEA ENERGIE (a VEOLIA subsidiary) that infringed its patent. The court granted the application, ordering the appointment of an expert to conduct the seizure at MAGUIN's premises, subject to a €10,000 guarantee and execution by January 17, 2025.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a Court of First Instance order that granted Suinno leave to reduce its damages claim in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that Suinno's application constituted an unconditional limitation of its claim under Rule 263.3 RoP, which must always be granted, and that Microsoft's interests and right of defence were sufficiently protected.
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v.pharma-aktiva GmbH, ALDI SÜD Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. oHG, ALDI Nord Deutschland Stiftung & Co. KG, ALDI SE & Co. KG, Hofer Kommanditgesellschaft
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG, the proprietor of European Patent EP 1 993 363 B1 concerning a composition for combating ectoparasites and their eggs, sought interim measures against pharma-aktiva GmbH and several Aldi/Hofer entities for alleged infringement through the sale of a competing lice spray. The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court granted the interim measures in part, ordering the respondents to cease certain manufacturing, offering, and distribution activities in Germany and Austria, with penalties of EUR 100 per unit for violations, and to surrender infringing products in their possession.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' appeal against the dismissal of its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 for a C5-binding antibody (eculizumab) used to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. The court held that the patent's claim 2 could not be corrected by interpretation to remove 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus of SEQ ID NO:4, as the existence of the error and the precise correction were not sufficiently certain to the person skilled in the art. Consequently, the court found it more likely than not that claim 2 was insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC, and ordered Alexion to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG (Application for Access to Court Files) v.Ex Parte
HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG, an opponent in pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office concerning European Patent EP 3 602 692, applied for access to the briefs and evidence filed in infringement proceedings between PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The court granted the application, holding that an opponent in pending opposition proceedings has a legal interest in accessing court files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP during ongoing proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. The court granted both parties' Rule 263 requests to add Romania (which acceded to the Unitary Patent system on 1 September 2024) to the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, and granted the claimant's request to amend its information request to require purchase documents. The court set the dispute value at €16 million, scheduled the oral hearing for 11 February 2025, and rejected requests for party and court experts.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning EP4108782. The court confirmed the judge-rapporteur's rejection of Harvard's third request to amend the patent, holding that under Rule 30.2 RoP, a delay of approximately three months between the reason for the amendment (the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion of August 2, 2024) and the filing of the request (October 25, 2024) was too long. The court ruled that the patent proprietor's subjective expectations regarding procedural delay are irrelevant, and the question must be assessed objectively.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 B1 relating to the antibody eculizumab for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, sought provisional measures against Amgen, which markets BEKEMV®, a biosimilar of Soliris®. The Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) dismissed Alexion's application, and Alexion appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the patent's SEQ ID NO:4 sequence must be interpreted as including 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus, and that Alexion had failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the skilled person would correct this as an error, rendering the patent claim more likely than not insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning the admission of new evidence in proceedings related to provisional measures ordered by the Local Division Munich regarding patent EP 2 152 073. The Court of Appeal disregarded Sumi Agro's Exhibit SA17 (an excerpt from a book already partially submitted in first instance) and Syngenta's conditional counter-exhibits FF28-29, but admitted Syngenta's Exhibits FF24-27 relating to the purchase and analysis of a potentially different version of the contested Kagura product (Kagura 2024).
HGSystem ApS, Rune Eilertsen, Infotech Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS v.Hybridgenerator ApS
The Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Copenhagen confirmed its ex parte order of August 26, 2024, granting Hybridgenerator ApS's application for the preservation of evidence and inspection of property under Article 60 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 196 of the Rules of Procedure, concerning European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1. The respondents (collectively 'rekvisiti') had sought review of the order under Article 60(6) of the UPC Agreement, primarily arguing that the patent was invalid, that the evidence did not support infringement, and that certain parties should not have been included. The court found that Hybridgenerator had presented reasonably available evidence supporting a plausible infringement claim and that the inclusion of all four companies and the individual was justified given the close intermingling of the parties.
LAMA France v.Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
This case concerns procedural requests filed by LAMA France in response to an enforcement application by Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) following a November 13, 2024 infringement decision concerning European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. LAMA sought a stay of execution, a restricted confidentiality circle limited to counsel only, and subsidiarily a €2 million guarantee. The Local Division of Paris rejected the stay request for lack of jurisdiction, partially granted the confidentiality circle request under Rule 262A RoP, and rejected the guarantee request.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
Infringement action by Huawei Technologies against Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989, which relates to methods and devices for transmitting/receiving a High Efficiency Signal Field B (HE-SIG-B) in wireless local area networks. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a mixed ruling, finding partial infringement while addressing FRAND/competition law defenses, exhaustion arguments, and IEEE Bylaws issues, with costs split 80/20 against the defendants.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes Care filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes Care's European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, which relates to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. Roche raised a preliminary objection based on a standstill agreement requiring 90 days' notice before filing suit, which was rejected. The Court ultimately dismissed the revocation action, finding that the grounds for invalidity (added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step) were not well founded, and maintained the patent as granted.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V.
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court addressed a preliminary objection filed by Defendants Yves Prevoo (managing director) and Easee Holding B.V. (parent company), who argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over claims based on personal/director liability and tort. The court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that alleged patent infringement constitutes a matter of tort under Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, giving the UPC jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and that questions of director liability are matters of merit rather than jurisdiction.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH, and Belkin Limited
This case concerns an application by Koninklijke Philips N.V. for the imposition of a coercive fine (Zwangsgeld) against the Belkin entities for non-compliance with an information order (Auskunft) issued in a main infringement decision dated September 13, 2024, regarding EP 2 867 997 B1. The Local Chamber Munich held that while the defendants were not required to provide the information in electronic form (since this was not specifically requested), they had provided incomplete information. A total coercive fine of €46,000 was imposed, and appeal was admitted.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action by Amycel LLC (proprietor of EP1993350) against an unnamed defendant located in Poland. The court addressed Amycel's application regarding the service of the Statement of Claim on the defendant, who had refused to accept delivery through multiple channels. The court ruled that the alternative methods of service employed by Amycel constituted good service under R. 275.2 RoP, deemed the Statement of Claim served on 25 November 2024, and set a three-month period for the defendant to file a Statement of Defense.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
Infringement action by Huawei against Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989 relating to HE-SIG-B signaling in wireless local area networks. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed multiple defenses including exhaustion, FRAND, and IEEE LOA-based arguments, ultimately finding partial infringement and ordering injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and damages, while splitting costs 80/20 in favor of the defendants on the infringement claim.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 794 928 B1, the Claimant (NanoString Technologies Europe Limited) sought release of a EUR 300,000 security for legal costs previously ordered under Rule 158 RoP. The Claimant argued it was now solvent following its acquisition by Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and that the first instance decision in its favor (patent revoked) eliminated any potential cost liability. The Court rejected the request, holding that the Claimant failed to provide information about its own independent financial position and that the first instance decision was not final as it remained subject to appeal.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Curio Bioscience filed an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP seeking to stay an order from the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide EUR 200,000 in security for legal costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Curio had not established the extreme urgency required under Rule 223.4 RoP, as it had merely claimed it would be forced to comply with a manifestly wrong order or face a default judgment.
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.