European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 38 of 67 · 2,007 total
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
Procedural Order
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited & Others
ICPillar LLC filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP3000239 against multiple ARM entities, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. Following a confidential mediation in the parallel US litigation and a settlement agreement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims. The Court permitted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, ordered full reimbursement of the security for costs, but reduced the court fee reimbursement from 60% to 40% due to the late stage of proceedings and substantial work already undertaken by the Court.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) requested an extension of time limits for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court harmonised the time limits and set the deadline at 14 January 2025, but rejected the request for any further extension beyond the statutory period.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation sought leave to appeal an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) that had granted the respondent, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, leave to reduce its damages claim to €2 million in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Microsoft argued that leave to appeal would clarify the scope and limits of the Court's powers in interpreting a party's request under Article 76(1) UPCA and the admissible scope of a Rule 263 RoP application. The panel rejected the request, finding that the issue raised was not the subject of different interpretations by UPC judges and would not affect the final decision on the merits.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited sought to revoke a preliminary measures order (ORD 47657/2024) against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited, arguing that the underlying main proceedings on the merits were not timely started within the non-extendable deadlines under Rule 213.1 RoP. The Local Division Munich dismissed the application, holding that the proceedings were validly started when the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024, and that Rule 15(2) RoP does not require court fees to have been physically received by the Court before the deadline expires.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning the correct date of service of a patent infringement claim. The court determined that the statement of claim filed on November 6, 2024, regarding EP 3 764 271, was served on the defendant in Switzerland on November 20, 2024, rather than the November 23, 2024 date automatically recorded by the Case Management System.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against several Meril entities and related companies regarding EP3769722. The Defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the European Patent Office Opposition Division's decision on the patent's validity. After the Court of Appeal set aside an earlier order dismissing the stay request, the Court of First Instance again dismissed the stay request and decided to proceed with the oral hearing as planned on 16 January 2025.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna against a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had exempted Magna's supply obligations for five BMW models but omitted the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé (F74) from the exemption list. The Court of Appeal found that Magna had clearly identified the 2 Series Gran Coupé in its submissions and that the CFI should have included it in the exemption, ordering the injunction's effect suspended as to that model until the appeal is decided.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 866 051. Hand Held Products requested simultaneous interpretation from German to English for an oral hearing scheduled for January 9, 2025. The Court rejected both the main request for court-ordered interpretation and the alternative request for interpretation at the applicant's cost, but noted that Hand Held Products could privately arrange interpretation at its own expense under Rule 109.4.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Dolby International AB against 15 HP entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the HP defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its action and the HP defendants to withdraw their counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed both withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees to both parties.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu, Inc., Abbott B.V., Abbott, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott France, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Oy
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division against multiple Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc. concerning European Patent EP 3 831 282 B1, which relates to remote monitoring of analyte measurements, particularly glucose levels in diabetes patients. Abbott filed a counterclaim for revocation, and DexCom submitted auxiliary requests to amend the patent. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding it invalid as granted and as amended under all auxiliary requests due to added-matter objections under Article 138(1)(c) EPC, and dismissed all of DexCom's infringement claims.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, Netgear Deutschland GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, SMIS International OÜ, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB, VAB-Logistik UAB
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3769722. The order addresses multiple case management issues raised during an interim conference, including the value of the case, scheduling relative to parallel EPO opposition proceedings, admissibility of late-filed attacks on inventive step, and various other procedural requests. The Court set the total case value at 6,000,000 EUR, declined to reschedule the oral hearing, excluded certain late-filed inventive step attacks, and ruled on the admissibility of auxiliary requests, equivalence arguments, and expert-related requests.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction removes the legal basis for a subsequent penalty order imposed for alleged violations of that injunction. The Court held that the setting aside of a preliminary injunction under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the injunction is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning. Consequently, the Court set aside the penalty order of €100,000 imposed on NanoString, rejected 10x's applications, ordered 10x to bear the costs, and directed the Registry to refund the amount paid by NanoString.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application concerning the service of a request for preliminary measures (interim injunction) to a Chinese-domiciled defendant in proceedings related to EP 3 655 341. After formal service under the Hague Service Convention failed due to the Chinese authority's non-processing for over six months, and alternative methods of service were neither factually nor legally possible, the court held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. Service was deemed effective as of the date of the order, with the defendant given fourteen days to file an objection.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by air up group GmbH for a preliminary injunction against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. regarding EP 3 897 305. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention despite multiple attempts over more than six months. The court declared the steps already taken as good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, deemed service effective as of the date of the order, and granted the defendant 14 days to file an objection.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by air up group GmbH against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. regarding EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention as the competent Chinese authority received the documents but failed to process them for more than six months. The Local Division Munich held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order and granting the defendant 14 days to file an objection.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court granted Avago's application for an anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunction against Realtek. Realtek had filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking to permanently enjoin Avago from pursuing patent infringement claims in Germany against certain automotive companies using Realtek's products. The court held that such foreign anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions violate the European right to access to justice under Art. 47 of the EU Charter and the German constitutional right to access to courts, and qualify as tortious acts under § 823(1) BGB.
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Inc, Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A.
Procedural Order
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Claimant 10x Genomics requested that the Defendant Curio Bioscience provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Defendant argued the application was inadmissible, contending that Art. 69(4) UPCA only permits defendants to request security from claimants. The Court held the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Defendant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within four weeks, and granted leave to appeal.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division Munich in favor of Dyson Technology Limited against SharkNinja. The dispute centered on European Patent EP 2 043 492, directed to a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a cyclonic separating apparatus. The Court of Appeal set aside the preliminary injunction, finding that Dyson had not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the attacked SharkNinja embodiments infringed claim 1, specifically because the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the accused products used a cyclonic separating apparatus employing centrifugal force as required by feature 1.3 of the patent.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement and nullity counterclaim proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 215 288 (metal sintering preparation). The court addressed multiple requests including the review of a prior rejection of an amendment to add indirect infringement of a process claim, and requests by both parties to extend the proceedings to Romania following its accession to the UPC Agreement on September 1, 2024. The court granted the extensions to Romania for both the infringement claim and the nullity counterclaim, revised its prior order on indirect infringement, and established a new briefing schedule.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 594 009 B1 in a patent infringement action. The Court disregarded the Defendants' written submissions filed on 28 November 2024 because the Defendants failed to make a reasoned request for further written submissions as required under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC concerning European patent EP 2 875 740 B1, which relates to electronic vapour products. NJOY challenged the patent's validity on the ground of lack of inventive step, relying on prior art documents including 'Cross', 'Pan', and 'DiFonzo', as well as common general knowledge. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the invention was not obvious in view of the cited prior art combinations, and maintained the patent as granted, ordering NJOY to bear the costs.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing for its representatives who lacked sufficient English skills. The court granted the request for interpretation but ruled that the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, allowing FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against an unnamed Appellant who had appealed an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague concerning EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had initially declared micro-enterprise status to qualify for a reduced court fee but failed to substantiate his status as a small enterprise when ordered to do so, and did not pay the additional fees imposed. The Court denied the Appellant's requests to waive the additional fee and for legal aid, closed the appeal by default, and ordered the Appellant to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France SARL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 28 November 2024 in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 320 604 B1. The order classifies certain information contained in the Defendants' Statement of defence and specific exhibits as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP, and restricts access to a defined group of authorised persons on the Claimant's side.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 456 214, which relates to vaporizers/electronic cigarettes, on the grounds of lack of inventive step based on prior art documents 'Pan' and 'Cross'. The defendant filed conditional applications to amend the patent with multiple auxiliary requests. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the grounds for invalidity well founded, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rescheduling an Interim Conference in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2145848. The defendant Himson Engineering Private Limited declared unavailability due to prior professional commitments, and the court rescheduled the conference to the afternoon of the same day and converted it to a video-conference format with the agreement of all parties.
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.