European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 39 of 54 · 1,592 total
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application for rectification filed by Magna against Valeo following a prior injunction concerning electric motor generators and related parts used in BMW vehicles. Magna sought to amend the scope of the permitted use exceptions and clarify the geographical reach of a parallel vindication action. The Court ultimately dismissed these requests, upholding the original order's wording and finding that no 'obvious slip' or clerical error existed.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This UPC CFI case involved an application for rectification filed by Magna against Valeo following a previous injunction order concerning electric motor generators and gearbox assemblies used in BMW vehicles. Magna sought to amend the scope of the permitted use exceptions and clarify the geographical reach of related litigation actions. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected these requests, confirming that the original Order was legally sound and contained no clerical errors or obvious slips.
City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v.Maars Holding B.V.
In this UPC Security Application, Maars successfully argued that it required security for legal costs due to concerns over City Glass's financial situation and its non-EU base in India. The Court ruled in favor of Maars, ordering the Indian claimant to provide a deposit of EUR 19,000. This decision highlights the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness for defendants against the need to protect IP rights, while still accommodating international parties.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc.
This UPC preliminary order addressed a dispute over the confidentiality of documents related to the transfer of Patent EP2792100 from its original owner to Daedalus Prime LLC. The Claimant sought highly restricted access, arguing that details like purchase price were confidential and irrelevant to technical employees. The Court ultimately granted limited access to two specific in-house legal counsels on the Defendants' side (Xiaomi/MediaTek), while denying broader access to all personnel, thereby balancing commercial secrecy with procedural fairness.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this UPC case concerning the patent EP2792100, Daedalus Prime LLC sought to restrict access to confidential documents related to the patent transfer agreement. The Court of First Instance issued a preliminary order balancing confidentiality concerns with procedural fairness for the Defendants (Xiaomi and MediaTek). While granting restricted access to specific in-house legal counsel, the court rejected the Claimant's argument that all employees were irrelevant, but also limited access based on job function.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE
This preliminary order addressed a procedural issue in an infringement action brought by Malikie Innovations Ltd. against Nintendo of Europe SE regarding patent EP2579551. The Claimant sought to correct the name of Defendant 1 from 'Nintendo of Europe AG' to 'Nintendo of Europe SE', as the latter succeeded the former. The Court granted this rectification, confirming that no unreasonable prejudice was caused because the successor company had taken over all assets and business premises.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addressed applications filed by Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, seeking information about ongoing antitrust investigations by the European Commission against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The Court ultimately rejected these requests, finding that the Claimant's assertion—that the EC procedure was still in a preliminary fact-gathering stage without a formal investigation—was undisputed. This decision keeps the main infringement proceedings moving forward without external interference from EU competition authorities.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh
Edwards Lifesciences successfully sued Meril Life Sciences in the UPC Local Division Munich regarding infringement of its patented SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve. The court found infringement and issued a comprehensive order, including the destruction of infringing devices and substantial preliminary damages. This ruling reinforces the strength of patent rights within the Unified Patent Court system, particularly for critical medical technologies like TAVI.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Claimant) sued Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Respondents) for infringement of EP 3646825. The Defendants sought to compel the UPC to request information from the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant's patent practices. However, the Panel rejected this request, finding that the preliminary nature of the EC proceedings meant no formal investigation had been opened. This decision underscores the Court's focus on procedural efficiency and its reliance on established facts presented during hearings.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd
This UPC decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to patent infringement (EP 3 197 316). The Court ruled that despite Rule 370(9)(b) VerfO explicitly referencing 'Klage' (action), it could be analogously applied to provisional measure applications. This ruling fills a regulatory gap, confirming that the incentive structure for early case termination—where fees are partially refunded based on when the application is withdrawn—applies consistently across different types of UPC proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Panel rejected the Defendants' requests to compel the European Commission to provide details on ongoing antitrust investigations against the Claimant. The Court determined that since both parties confirmed the EC procedure was still in a preliminary fact-gathering stage without a formal investigation, there was no relevant new information to be obtained at this time. This decision underscores the court's focus on the core patent litigation while managing procedural requests for external regulatory data.
Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
In a significant procedural ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to an order issued by the CFI. The dispute involved Magna International and Valeo Electrification regarding patent EP 3 320 602, which covers technology used in BMW models. Magna successfully argued that the original injunction contained a clear error—an 'obvious slip'—by omitting a specific model from its exceptions. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to correct procedural errors and prioritize maintaining the status quo when such errors threaten fundamental fairness.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a request for confidentiality protection regarding sensitive recipe information in an ongoing infringement case. The court balanced the need for trade secret protection against the parties' right to conduct their defense. Ultimately, while granting strict confidentiality measures, the Court rejected the respondent's attempt to severely restrict access, allowing all named claimants to view the protected documents.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement and nullity action concerning compatible printer cartridges. The court affirmed the scope of direct infringement under Article 25 AJUB, ruling that prior knowledge by the defendant is not a prerequisite for establishing infringement. While the claimant sought broad remedies including injunctions and damages, the final judgment focused on compelling information disclosure to facilitate damage calculation, while rejecting provisional payment requests.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical point regarding the transitional regime: whether prior national court proceedings can block an opt-out withdrawal. The Court held that only actions brought during the transitional period count against the ability to withdraw, thereby validating AIM's attempt to re-enter the UPC system for its patent. This ruling significantly eases the burden on patentees seeking to utilize the UPC after having previously engaged with national courts.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S
Headwater Research LLC initiated an infringement action against Samsung Electronics entities before the UPC. This preliminary order addresses procedural matters, specifically concerning the production of evidence (RoP190). The case remains in the early stages of litigation as the court manages the discovery process.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical point regarding the transitional regime: whether prior national court proceedings can block an effective withdrawal of an opt-out. The Court held that Art. 83(4) UPCA only restricts actions brought during the transitional period, meaning pre-transitional litigation does not invalidate a subsequent opt-out withdrawal. This ruling provides significant clarity and relief for patent holders seeking to utilize the UPC system after initially opting out.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. And Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited
Cardo Systems successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Asmax and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited regarding the patented fastening device EP 4 240 194. The Court granted the preliminary measure without hearing the defendants, immediately halting their ability to market or use the infringing product across UPC member states. This decision highlights the speed and effectiveness of provisional measures within the Unified Patent Court system for protecting IP rights.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre sought provisional measures against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and CCPIT ahead of a major trade show, alleging that the respondent was selling infringing motorcycle tyres. The UPC Court of First Instance granted seizure and delivery of the contested products and promotional material to prevent further commercialization during the event. This decision allows Pirelli to secure evidence while reserving the final determination of infringement for the merits phase.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. initiated a revocation action against Juul Labs, Inc., challenging the validity of EP 3 504 991 B1, which covers vaporization device cartridges. The UPC Central Division ultimately dismissed the revocation action, upholding the patent's validity. The decision reinforced fundamental principles of European patent law, particularly stressing that inventive step must be assessed objectively by a person skilled in the art, independent of the parties' subjective views.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH
In a critical case concerning motorcycle tires, Pirelli Tyre successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC Local Division in Milan against Tianjin Kingtyre and Kingtyre Deutschland. Facing an imminent trade fair where infringing products were set to be displayed, Pirelli secured an order for the seizure and delivery of contested goods. This ruling underscores the UPC's ability to provide rapid interim relief in complex infringement cases while maintaining procedural safeguards.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a significant revocation action, the UPC Central Division revoked European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1 concerning vaporization device systems (aerosol cartridges). The decision not only resulted in the complete invalidation of the patent across multiple UPCA territories but also provided important procedural guidance on how courts handle applications to amend patents during revocation proceedings. This case underscores the UPC's power to enforce validity challenges while managing complex technical and legal submissions.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This UPC decision addressed an application for access to confidential documents within a revocation action (UPC 75/2023). The Applicant, Mathys & Squire LLP, sought unredacted versions of pleadings related to the Claimant's product valuation. The Court ruled in favor of the Applicant, finding that the Claimant failed to provide legitimate reasons to maintain confidentiality regarding the specific information. This decision reinforces the principle that public access is the default unless a party can clearly demonstrate a compelling need for secrecy.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile successfully sued Bhagat Textile Engineers for infringing its patent covering a false twist texturing machine. The Milan Local Division found infringement and issued an injunction prohibiting the sale and promotion of the infringing machine in Italy and Germany. Furthermore, the court imposed a penalty of 12,000 Euro per violation episode and awarded Oerlikon interim damages of 15,000 Euro.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for discovery/document production (Verfahrensanordnung) in an infringement case involving 10x Genomics and Vizgen regarding EP4108782. The court ordered the exchange of numerous documents, including deposition transcripts from both sides, which originated from parallel US litigation. A key aspect of the ruling is the imposition of strict confidentiality protocols ('Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only') on all disclosed materials to protect sensitive business information.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Scandit AG seeking permission to submit a reply brief in an ongoing infringement appeal against Hand Held Products, Inc. The court ultimately denied the request, reinforcing strict adherence to the rules governing written submissions in the appellate phase. The ruling underscores the importance of 'front-loaded' arguments and efficiency in UPC proceedings, preventing parties from introducing new substantive points late in the process.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In this provisional measures case, Valeo Electrification sought an injunction against Magna entities regarding the rotary electric machine patent EP 3 320 602 B1. The UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf partially granted the application, allowing the defendants to continue their existing supply obligations to BMW provided they furnish a security deposit of EUR 500,000 by November 21, 2024. This decision highlights the court's balancing act between protecting the patent holder's rights and ensuring business continuity for the defendant.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL
In this provisional measures case concerning an automotive motor patent (EP 3 320 604 B1), the UPC Local Division granted a preliminary injunction to Valeo Electrification against Magna PT and its affiliates. The injunction was conditional, allowing the Defendants to continue supplying specific models to their customer BMW if they provided a security deposit of €500,000. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach in balancing patent holder rights with the operational needs of defendants facing existing supply chain commitments.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In a significant ruling for the carbonation device market, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf found that SodaStream Industries Ltd. successfully proved infringement against Aarke AB regarding their respective carbonator products. The court granted an interim damages award of EUR 250,000 and issued a cease and desist order based on Claim 1 of EP 1 793 917. This decision reinforces the importance of precise claim construction under Art. 69 EPC while providing immediate relief to the patent holder.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request by Fujifilm Corporation to submit further written observations regarding the private prior use defense raised by Kodak entities. The Court ultimately rejected the request, citing concerns over unnecessary delay and the timing of the submission relative to other proceedings. This decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements within the UPC, emphasizing that requests for additional pleadings must be carefully weighed against the overall efficiency and timeline of the 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.