European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 39 of 67 · 2,007 total
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court considered Total Semiconductor's request for discretionary review of an order by the Mannheim Local Division's judge-rapporteur requiring Total Semiconductor to provide €600,000 in security for costs. The central issue was whether a judge-rapporteur has the competence to issue an order on security for costs and deny leave to appeal, or whether such an order must be adopted by a panel. The Court of Appeal allowed leave to appeal on this procedural question but expressly excluded the substantive matter of security for costs from the scope of review.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, the claimant in a patent infringement action against Microsoft Corporation before the Central Division (Paris seat), applied under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to reduce its damages claim from the originally stated amount to €2 million, citing more accurate evidence. Microsoft opposed, arguing the application fell outside Rule 263, was a litigation tactic to reduce security for costs, and failed to meet the rule's requirements. The Court granted the application, holding that a reduction of damages constitutes a limitation of the claim which must be granted under Rule 263(3) when filed with due explanation and unconditionally, but rejected Suinno's request to reconsider fees already paid.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns a request by the defendants for the claimant to provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 346 403. The defendants argued that the claimant, a Korean IP monetization company incorporated in 2024 with limited assets and a low credit rating, posed a risk that any cost order would be unrecoverable. The claimant did not contest the request and agreed to provide security of EUR 112,000, and the court ordered the security to be provided by deposit or bank guarantee by 15 January 2025.
C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell
Procedural order from the Paris local division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2265793. The court addressed NOVAWELL's procedural requests to reject an affidavit from a prior seizure operation, to hear witnesses, and to conduct pleadings in French, all of which were dismissed. The court set the value of the case at EUR 1 million and established the timetable for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 17 December 2024.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Logistics B.V. and Others
This procedural order concerns an application by DexCom, Inc. under Rules 334(e) and 336 of the Rules of Procedure, seeking to reopen the debate after the oral hearing in an infringement action concerning European patent EP3831282. DexCom sought to introduce a November 6, 2024 decision of the Munich Regional Court concerning the parent patent EP 2,939,158. The Court held the application admissible but dismissed it as not well-grounded, finding the Munich decision concerned a different patent with different features and did not examine validity on the merits.
Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co
Häfele SE & Co KG sought interim measures from the Local Chamber Munich against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 767 151 concerning a cabinet levelling apparatus. The court rejected the application, finding that prior art documents (D8 and D9) raised serious doubts about the validity of the patent, and that the balance of interests weighed against granting interim relief given the pending nullity action and opposition proceedings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's application under Rule 333 RoP to review and set aside a prior order by the Judge-Rapporteur that had rejected FUJIFILM's request to submit a further written pleading in response to new prior use allegations raised by the Kodak defendants in their Rejoinder. The Panel found the request for review admissible but dismissed it on the merits, holding that the Judge-Rapporteur had correctly balanced the risk of delay against the Claimant's interest in further written submissions.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848, owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG against Himson Engineering Private Limited. The order sets out the agenda for the upcoming Interim Conference and Oral Hearing, addressing issues including settlement possibilities, translation errors in the Italian patent validation, Himson's counterclaim for revocation, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, the infringement claim, and ancillary measures. The Interim Conference was postponed from 29 November 2024 to 6 December 2024 due to a general strike in Italy.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The defendants in a patent infringement case concerning EP 2 568 724 filed a last-minute request to stay the proceedings and cancel the scheduled announcement date of November 22, 2024, or alternatively to postpone it to at least December 6, 2024. The Local Chamber Mannheim rejected both the main and alternative requests, finding that no joint application for stay existed under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure and that no circumstances justified a stay under Rule 295(m).
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to radio communication devices and methods essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a revocation counterclaim and a FRAND counterclaim seeking court-determined license terms. The Local Chamber Mannheim found partial infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim and the FRAND counterclaim, and ordered the defendants to bear the costs.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants in microbial fuel cells, to be valid and infringed by equivalence by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court applied a four-question test for assessing infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringement, recall infringing products, provide information, publish a corrective notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for non-compliance.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation sought provisional measures from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against A. Menarini Diagnostics, alleging infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327 through the sale of the EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump insulin patch pump. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Insulet failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid and infringed, and that the balance of interests did not favor granting the injunction. Insulet was ordered to pay EUR 117,465.00 as interim costs.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) ruled that European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants, is valid and infringed by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court found infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringing activities, provide information, publish a recall notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for any further infringement.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation, owner of European Patent EP4201327 concerning a fluid delivery device (insulin pump), sought a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. alleging that EOFLOW's 'EOPatch' insulin pump infringed its patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) denied the application for provisional measures, finding significant doubts regarding the validity of the patent in light of prior art (US'994), which appeared to disclose all features of claim 1. The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Collomix GmbH v.Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG, and Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning water dosing devices marketed as 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät.' The claimant, Collomix GmbH, sought permission to submit a physical example of the accused embodiment after filing the claim. The court granted the request, holding that the Rules of Procedure contain no principle preventing a claimant from submitting evidence for facts alleged in the claim after the claim has been filed.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited and Others v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Court of First Instance (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) that had refused to stay infringement proceedings pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance erred by basing its refusal solely on the finding that a final EPO decision could not be expected rapidly, and referred the case back for further consideration of the stay request.
OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v.[Respondent]
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 331 036 B1 for a device treating nighttime breathing problems. The appellants (OrthoApnea and Vivisol) challenged orders of the Court of First Instance in Brussels regarding the admissibility of a new equivalence argument raised by the patent holder after filing its Statement of Claim. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal against the primary order was inadmissible, while the appeal against the reassessment order was admissible but had to be rejected, finding no abuse of discretion by the lower court.
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 before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had issued a preliminary injunction against Magna but exempted its supply obligations for five BMW models. Magna sought rectification, arguing the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was inadvertently omitted, which the Court of First Instance denied. The Standing Judge of the Court of Appeal granted Magna's renewed application for suspensive effect, suspending the impugned order's effect regarding the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model until the competent panel of the Court of Appeal decides on the matter.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories et al.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488, in which DexCom, Inc. brought a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, primarily for reasons of procedural efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
The Defendants filed an application under R. 353 RoP seeking rectification of an Order dated 31 October 2024, which had granted provisional measures against them concerning EP 3 320 604 B1. They sought three corrections: adding '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the list of exempted BMW models, clarifying that a French vindication action covered both French and German parts of the patent, and amending a statement about an obligation to update a list. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the application, finding no clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, or obvious slips in the original Order.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories et al.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488. The Claimant DexCom, Inc. requested an extension of time limits for filing the Rejoinder to the Counterclaim for revocation and the Reply to the conditional Application to amend. Although the Defendants (multiple Abbott entities) did not consent, the court granted the extension based on fairness and equity, extending the deadlines until 11 December 2024.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed an application by the Defendants (Magna entities) for rectification of an earlier order dated 31 October 2024, which had granted provisional measures against them in favor of the Applicant (Valeo Electrification) concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Defendants sought three corrections: adding the BMW model '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the exemption list, clarifying that a French vindication action also covered the German and Slovak parts of the patent, and correcting a statement about the parties' agreement to update a list. The Court found no obvious slips warranting rectification under R. 353 RoP and dismissed the application.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, and MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This case concerns a confidentiality application (R. 262A RoP) filed by the Claimant Daedalus Prime LLC in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP2792100. The Claimant sought to restrict access to certain statements regarding the transfer of the patent suit and a partially redacted Patent Transfer Agreement to attorneys' eyes only. The Court balanced the parties' interests and granted access to two specific in-house legal counsels of the Xiaomi Defendants, while denying access to a third in-house counsel responsible for technical analysis.
Maars Holding B.V. and Others v.City Glass and Glazing Private Limited
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Maars entities) applied for an order requiring the claimant (City Glass and Glazing Private Limited) to provide security for legal costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) granted the application in part, ordering City Glass to provide security of EUR 19,000 by deposit on the UPC account by 29 January 2025, while dismissing the request for leave for interim appeal.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This case concerns a confidentiality application (R. 262A RoP) filed by the Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, seeking to restrict access to certain documents filed in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant sought 'attorneys' eyes only' protection for statements regarding the transfer of the patent suit and a partially redacted Patent Transfer Agreement. The Court granted the confidentiality request but extended access to two specific in-house legal counsels of the Defendants, finding that while the Defendants' waivers in other proceedings did not bind them in UPC proceedings, access should be limited to legal counsel involved in legal analysis rather than technical analysis.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE & Nintendo Co., Ltd.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. filed an infringement action against Nintendo of Europe AG and Nintendo Co., Ltd. concerning EP2579551, but had erroneously named Defendant 1 as 'Nintendo of Europe AG' instead of 'Nintendo of Europe SE,' the latter being the universal successor. The Court granted the rectification of the defendant's name, finding no unreasonable prejudice since Nintendo of Europe SE had taken over all assets, premises, email addresses, and the VAT number of the former AG. The Court also determined that the date of service on the corrected defendant was deemed effected on 17 October 2024, serving as the starting point for the time-limit to file the Statement of Defence.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd (EP 3 197 316)
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court ruled on the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 3 197 316. The applicant, Koninklijke Philips N.V., withdrew its application for interim measures one day after filing, and subsequently sought reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid. The court held that Rule 370(9)(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure applies by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for interim measures and ordered reimbursement of €6,600.00.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European Patent No. 3646825 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants (Meril) filed applications requesting the court to approach the European Commission for information about ongoing antitrust investigations into the claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the oral hearing. The court rejected both applications as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and oral hearing, and noting that no formal antitrust investigation had been opened.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. and Meril GmbH
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court for infringement of European Patent EP 3 646 825 concerning transcatheter heart valve technology. The court found that Meril's Myval transcatheter heart valve and associated delivery and crimping systems infringed Edwards' patent, and ordered recall, destruction, damages of €663,000, and publication of the decision. The court also addressed public interest concerns by creating a mechanism allowing individual patients to request single-use licences for XL-sized Myval devices where the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve is not clinically suitable.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a request filed by the defendants (Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.) in an ongoing patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendants sought to have the court request information from the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) and to reopen the proceedings. The Local Division Munich rejected the request as late-filed and without merit.
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.