European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 38 of 54 · 1,592 total
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
In a significant decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Dyson's request for an injunction against SharkNinja concerning EP 2 043 492. The court found that the probability of infringement was not overwhelmingly high, particularly regarding the cyclonic separating apparatus feature (1.3). This ruling underscores the high evidentiary threshold required to obtain provisional relief in UPC proceedings.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order in a UPC infringement case involving Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz addresses complex requests for expanding the scope of claims, particularly concerning Romania's accession to the UPC. The court proposed a unified approach to allow all parties' amendments to proceed, thereby streamlining the litigation process. This decision highlights the Court's focus on procedural fairness and efficiency when dealing with evolving jurisdictional scopes.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict criteria for granting security for costs under R.158 RoP, particularly when enforcement involves foreign jurisdictions like Israel. The court emphasized that a claimant's status as an SME or the defendant's affiliation with a financially sound group is irrelevant; only the defendant's individual financial capacity and the practical enforceability of a cost order matter. Aarke's appeal was rejected because it failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that enforcement in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request from Fujifilm Corporation for simultaneous interpretation during oral proceedings, citing concerns over language barriers. The court acknowledged that providing interpretation was necessary to uphold the principle of fair trial and equality of arms. However, it firmly rejected the claim that these costs should be covered by the Court, stating that while the Claimant could hire an interpreter at its own expense, the UPC cannot generally provide services in all languages.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In a significant revocation action concerning electronic vapour products, the UPC Central Division dismissed NJOY Netherlands B.V.'s challenge against VMR Products LLC's patent (EP 2 875 740 B1). The Claimant argued that the patent lacked inventive step, but the Court ruled that the alleged lack of inventiveness was not substantiated by the prior art cited. This decision reinforces the robustness of certain technical innovations within the vaping market and serves as a strong defense for patentees against validity challenges.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request for further submissions in an ongoing infringement action concerning EP 3 594 009 B1. The Court ruled that because the Defendants failed to provide a reasoned request under Rule 36 RoP, their recent written brief would be disregarded. This decision keeps the case moving forward procedurally while deferring judgment on the merits of the patent infringement claim.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the protection of confidential information within a running infringement case (UPC_CFI_460/2024). The Court granted the Claimant's request to classify specific exhibits from the Defendants' Statement of Defence as confidential. This ruling is crucial for managing sensitive trade secrets in parallel proceedings, allowing litigation to proceed while maintaining strict control over proprietary data.
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal challenging a provisional measures order, but ultimately focused on procedural compliance regarding court fees. The Appellant failed to pay the required remainder and penalty fees after being ordered to provide evidence of his small enterprise status. Consequently, the Court issued a decision by default against the Appellant, dismissing the appeal. This case highlights the strict adherence UPC courts maintain to procedural deadlines and financial obligations.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the scope of judicial competence, specifically whether a judge-rapporteur can unilaterally impose security for costs and deny leave to appeal. The court ruled that while case management orders are generally not directly appealable, the underlying issue raised an important access to justice question about judicial authority. By allowing limited leave to appeal on this procedural point, the Court ensured that fundamental questions of procedure could be addressed by a panel.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In a significant revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. successfully challenged VMR Products LLC's patent EP 3 456 214, which covers electronic vaporizers/e-cigarettes. The UPC Central Division found that the patent lacked inventive step and ordered its complete revocation across all relevant territories. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules regarding amendments and evidence in complex validity challenges before the Unified Patent Court.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case UPC_CFI_240/2023 involves Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK (Claimant) against Himson Engineering Private Limited (Respondent) regarding patent EP2145848. The court addressed a scheduling conflict raised by the defendant and subsequently issued an order to postpone the Interim Conference. This highlights the UPC's procedural flexibility in managing complex litigation schedules.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH, Myriad GmbH, Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad Genetics Inc., Eurobio Scientific
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Court mandated that the Claimant, GXD-Bio Corporation, provide security for legal costs to the Defendants. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant's financial standing raised legitimate concerns about cost recovery. Although the initial request was for a default judgment upon failure to comply, the Court granted a seven-week extension until January 15, 2025, allowing the Claimant time to arrange the necessary deposit.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC decision addressed an application by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy seeking leave to reduce the damages claimed in an infringement action against Microsoft Corporation. The court ruled that limiting a claim, such as reducing the monetary value of damages, falls under Rule 263(3) and must be granted if properly explained. This reinforces the principle that procedural efficiency allows for necessary adjustments to claims during litigation, provided they are adequately justified.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order sets the stage for a complex infringement dispute between C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED and NOVAWELL concerning patent EP2265793. The Court addressed several preliminary motions, dismissing requests for additional witnesses or language changes, while formally defining the scope of the upcoming oral hearing. Crucially, the Judge-Rapporteur established the value of the case at EUR 1 million, paving the way for a detailed examination of patent validity and infringement.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Logistics B.V.
In this procedural order, DexCom sought to introduce a decision from the Munich Regional Court concerning its parent patent (EP'158) into the ongoing UPC infringement action regarding EP'282. While the UPC acknowledged that case management powers are available at late stages, the court ultimately dismissed DexCom's application. The ruling emphasized that merely referencing related proceedings is insufficient; the external decision must be directly relevant to the patent in suit and its validity on the merits.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order (UPC_CFI_240/2023), Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG addressed its infringement claim against Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding patent EP2145848. The court focused heavily on case management, defining the scope of evidence and arguments for the upcoming oral hearing. Key issues included Himson's counterclaim for revocation, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, and the admissibility of video and testimonial evidence. Due to a general strike in Italy, the interim conference was postponed.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application by Fujifilm Corporation seeking to overturn a previous decision that denied them permission for a further written submission. The dispute centered on the right of prior use defense raised by Kodak entities. The UPC Panel dismissed the request, emphasizing that strict adherence to procedural timelines is crucial in complex patent litigation. This ruling reinforces the principle that parties must manage their filing deadlines carefully to avoid unnecessary delays in proceedings.
Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co
In this UPC case concerning a cabinet levelling apparatus, Häfele SE & Co KG sought provisional measures against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. The court ultimately denied the request for an injunction, citing that doubts regarding the patent's legal basis could weigh against granting such relief. Despite denying the immediate measure, the court set the disputed value of the patent at EUR 500,000, providing a clear financial benchmark for future proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a motion filed by the defendants (OROPE and OPPO) seeking to suspend the proceedings related to EP 2 568 724 and postpone the announcement date. The court rejected these requests, emphasizing that procedural fairness requires both parties to actively participate in the process. The ruling underscores that unilateral attempts to delay or halt a case without mutual agreement or compelling justification will be unsuccessful.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued OPPO group companies for infringing its patent EP 2 568 724, which relates to radio communication devices essential for the 4G standard. The case also involved counterclaims regarding FRAND licensing and patent revocation. While the court found infringement and awarded preliminary damages of €250,000, it ultimately dismissed the main infringement lawsuit. This decision highlights the complex interplay between finding technical infringement and the ultimate scope of relief granted in UPC proceedings.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In a significant ruling for green technology patents, the UPC found that Arkyne Technologies S.L. infringed Plant-e Knowledge B.V.'s patent EP2137782 by equivalence. The court applied a detailed four-part test to determine if the respondent's biofuel cell products fell within the scope of the claims, confirming both validity and infringement. This decision underscores the importance of robust claim construction and the application of the equivalence doctrine in complex technological fields like microbial fuel cells.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation sought provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics regarding the infringement of its insulin patch pump patent (EP 4201327). The Court dismissed Insulet's application, finding that the necessary cumulative evidence—including a sufficient degree of certainty regarding validity and imminent infringement—was not met. This decision underscores the high procedural bar required to obtain interim relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when faced with multiple validity challenges.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Plant-e successfully sued Arkyne Technologies (Bioo) in the UPC for infringement of its patent covering devices and methods that convert light energy into electricity using living plants. The court ruled that the patent was valid and found infringement based on equivalence, not just literal reading. This decision reinforces the application of established national case law tests when assessing non-literal infringement within the unified patent system.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation sought a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. regarding the alleged infringement of its fluid dispensing device patent (EP4201327), which covers advanced insulin pumps. However, the UPC Court of First Instance denied the application for provisional measures. The court determined that significant doubts existed concerning the novelty and validity of Insulet's patent in light of prior art disclosures, thereby preventing the immediate granting of an injunction.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB, Vab-Logistik UAB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a stay of infringement proceedings pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO. The court affirmed the legal basis for such a stay under Art. 33(10) UPCA, noting that it is crucial to prevent conflicting judgments between the UPC and the EPO regarding patent validity. Despite recognizing the merits of the request, the Court ultimately referred the case back to the Court of First Instance (CFI), allowing the CFI to exercise its discretion with full knowledge of the infringement proceedings' status.
Verweerder (unnamed in the provided text, but implied to be the party holding the patent) v.OrthoApnea S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision focused primarily on procedural matters concerning the admissibility of new arguments during an infringement case involving a sleep splint device. The court ruled that while parties are generally expected to present their full case early, new arguments can be admitted if circumstances permit and the opposing party has a chance to respond. Ultimately, the appeal against the review judgment was dismissed, upholding the lower court's findings on procedural grounds.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This appeal concerns a dispute over the scope of a preliminary injunction issued against Magna by the CFI, specifically regarding whether the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was correctly exempted from supply obligations. Magna sought suspensive effect to prevent enforcement on this specific model while its appeal proceeded. The Court of Appeal Standing Judge granted an interim order suspending the relevant part of the injunction, recognizing Magna’s interest in maintaining the status quo until a full panel decision is reached.
Collomix GmbH v.Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG; Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG; Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC court addressed a motion by Collomix GmbH to submit physical evidence of an allegedly infringing water dosing device (PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät). The respondents argued that such evidence should have been presented at the time of filing the claim. However, the court rejected this argument, citing Rule 172.2 EPGVerfO, which grants the court the power to order the submission of evidence at any point in the proceedings if the claimant asserts a fact and possesses the item. This decision reinforces the flexibility of the UPC's procedural rules regarding evidence presentation, ensuring that necessary preparatory steps are taken without prematurely limiting the scope of proof.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., etc.)
In a procedural order concerning EP 4 026 488, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf decided to proceed with a joint hearing of the infringement action brought by DexCom against Abbott and its subsidiaries, alongside the counterclaim for revocation. This decision prioritizes efficiency, ensuring that both validity and infringement are assessed under a single, uniform interpretation by the same judicial panel. The court also mandated the allocation of a technically qualified judge (TQJ) to manage the case effectively.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott GmbH, etc.)
In a procedural order concerning the dispute between DexCom, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories regarding EP 4 026 488, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted an extension of time for filing key pleadings. Although the Defendants did not consent to the delay, the Court found that granting the extension was justified on grounds of fairness and equity. This order highlights the procedural flexibility available within the UPC framework when balancing strict timelines against the practical needs of complex litigation.
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.