European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 40 of 67 · 2,007 total
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 646 825 before the Local Division Munich. The Defendants (Meril) filed late applications requesting the Court to approach the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the written procedure. The Court rejected the requests as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and the oral hearing, and noted that no formal investigation had been opened by the European Commission.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning confidentiality measures in infringement actions related to European Patent No. 3 215 288. The defendant Vibrantz sought to classify certain recipe/formulation information regarding sintering pastes as confidential and restrict access to a limited number of persons. The court granted secrecy protection but allowed access to the five named natural persons requested by the Heraeus plaintiffs, finding that the defendant had unnecessarily disclosed the exact recipe details in its submissions.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
Order
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) brought a patent infringement action against LAMA France before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging that LAMA's compatible ink cartridges infringed European Patents EP 1 737 669 and EP 2 089 230 relating to fluid ejection devices in inkjet printers. LAMA counterclaimed for invalidity of both patents on grounds including insufficient description, extension beyond the application, and lack of patentability. The Court upheld the validity of both patents, found LAMA liable for infringement, and ordered injunctive relief, corrective measures, and information disclosure, while rejecting LAMA's preliminary questions to the CJEU and splitting costs equally between the parties.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Article 83(4) UPCA regarding the withdrawal of an opt-out from the UPC's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to proceedings commenced prior to it. Consequently, the Court set aside the Court of First Instance's orders dismissing AIM's infringement action and provisional measures request, and referred the actions back to the Court of First Instance for further adjudication.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a preliminary order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. The order relates to an application by the claimant for an order to produce evidence under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure. The order was issued on 12 November 2024 by Presiding Judge Dr. Zigann.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether the withdrawal of an opt-out under Article 83(4) UPCA is ineffective when national court proceedings were commenced prior to the transitional period. The Court held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to pre-existing national proceedings. Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the Court of First Instance's orders and referred the infringement action and provisional measures application back for further adjudication.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking revocation of Juul Labs' European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1, directed to vaporization device systems (cartridges for generating inhalable aerosols). Juul Labs, as defendant, sought to maintain the patent as granted or in amended form based on twelve auxiliary requests. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the claims as granted and all proposed auxiliary requests added matter extending beyond the content of the parent and grandparent applications as filed, in violation of Article 123(2) EPC.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application for provisional measures before the Local Division in Milan of the Unified Patent Court against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH, seeking to prevent the alleged infringement of its European Patent EP 2519412 concerning motorcycle tyres. The defendants were scheduled to exhibit allegedly infringing products at the EICMA International Cycle and Motorcycle Exhibition in Rho-Fiera, Milan, from 5-10 November 2024. The court granted the limited request for seizure and delivery of the contested products and related promotional materials, along with authorization for alternative service at the defendants' exhibition stand.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 504 991 B1 owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., which relates to vaporization device systems (cartridges for generating inhalable aerosols). The Court dismissed the revocation action entirely, finding that the Claimant had failed to establish lack of novelty or inventive step, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub-council
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. sought provisional measures from the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co. Ltd. and CCPIT, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 519 207 (titled 'motorcycles tyre') by tires marketed as HA-51R and HA-51F. The court found the requirements for provisional measures satisfied, including urgency due to the imminent EICMA 2024 trade fair in Milan, and authorized the seizure of the allegedly infringing tires and related promotional materials at the respondents' exhibition stand.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application for provisional measures without hearing the other party before the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court, seeking a preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited based on European Patent No. EP 4 240 194, which relates to a fastening device for communication units. The Court granted the provisional measures, including an injunction, an order for delivery up of infringing products at EICMA 2024, and penalty payments, subject to the Applicant providing security of €100,000.
Mathys & Squire LLP (Application under Rule 262.3 RoP in UPC_CFI_75/2023) v.Ex Parte
Mathys & Squire LLP, an intellectual property law firm, applied under Rule 262.3 of the Rules of Procedure for access to unredacted versions of written pleadings in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_75/2023) concerning EP3056563, where certain information had been kept confidential at the request of the Claimant, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The Applicant argued that the redacted information was not genuinely confidential as it was either already publicly available or merely a summary of submissions already provided. The Court of First Instance (Central Division, Munich) found the application admissible and well-founded, holding that the Claimant had failed to contest the Applicant's assertions in a substantiated manner, and granted access to the unredacted documents.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 145 848 B1 ('false twist texturing machine') with unitary effect in Italy and Germany, sued Bhagat Textile Engineers for infringement after Bhagat exhibited an allegedly infringing machine at the ITMA trade fair in Milan in June 2023. Bhagat did not contest the validity of the patent or the infringement, but denied damages and sought suspension pending a parallel revocation action. The Milan Local Division found infringement, granted a permanent injunction with a penalty, awarded provisional damages, and ordered Bhagat to bear 80% of the costs.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by Scandit AG under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file a reply to Hand Held Products' response to the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, finding that Scandit had not sufficiently justified why a reply was necessary, and held that further prior art could not be introduced at the appeal stage without proper justification.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP4108782 (owned by Harvard College). The defendant Vizgen sought an order under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure requiring the claimants to produce specific documents and deposition transcripts previously disclosed in parallel US proceedings in Delaware. The court granted the production request in part, ordering the production of numerous designated documents and transcripts, while imposing strict 'Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only' confidentiality protections.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against three Magna entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 concerning a rotary electric machine with a lubricant reservoir. The court granted the injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease offering, placing on the market, or using infringing rotary electric machines and assemblies in Germany and France, subject to a security of EUR 2,500,000 and with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) before the Düsseldorf Local Division against three Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604 B1, a European patent relating to a rotary electric machine with angular position adjustment. The court granted the preliminary injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease manufacturing, offering, and selling infringing embodiments, with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations subject to security, and conditioned enforcement on the Applicant providing EUR 2,500,000 in security.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
SodaStream Industries Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 793 917 B1 concerning a device for carbonating liquid with pressurized gas, brought an infringement action against Aarke AB regarding its 'Aarke Carbonator Pro' sparkling water makers. The Local Division Düsseldorf found that the Defendant's product infringed Claim 1 of the patent in suit, rejecting the Defendant's Gillette defense and arguments that the claims should be limited to preferred embodiments. The Court granted injunctive relief, information orders, product surrender/recall, and an interim award of EUR 250,000 in damages, but dismissed the request for publication of the decision in public media.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. The court rejected FUJIFILM Corporation's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional written pleadings in response to the Kodak defendants' arguments on private prior use raised in their Rejoinder. The court held that allowing further submissions would cause unacceptable delay given the oral hearing already scheduled for December 2024, and that FUJIFILM's right to be heard was not unduly restricted as it could respond to new factual allegations during the interim procedure or at the oral hearing.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, in which the plaintiff Ortovox sought leave under Rule 36 RoP to file further pleadings after learning that the defendants were also offering the 'Barryvox S' with voice control, in addition to the previously attacked 'Barryvox S2'. The court rejected the application, finding that the plaintiff was already protected by confirmed provisional measures regarding the Barryvox S2, and that the Barryvox S was not part of the proceedings, requiring further submissions and response time that could not be accommodated before the scheduled oral hearing.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. Upon a joint request by the parties, the court ordered a stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure and cancelled the oral hearing previously scheduled for June 17, 2025.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
Order
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Sioen NV (SIOEN) in infringement proceedings brought by TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH (TEXPORT) before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP2186428, relating to tissue construction for protective clothing. SIOEN sought dismissal or stay of the UPC proceedings on the basis of parallel proceedings it had initiated before a Belgian national court, arguing that the Belgian court was first seised. The Court dismissed SIOEN's requests, finding that the parties in the parallel proceedings were not the same and that the conditions for staying or declining jurisdiction under Articles 29, 30, and 31 of the Brussels I recast Regulation were not met.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc. and Others
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 concerning inductive power transmission systems. The Local Division Munich found infringement and ordered remedies against both the corporate entities and their managing directors. Belkin appealed and sought suspensive effect of the appeal. The Court of Appeal partially granted the request, ordering suspensive effect only with respect to enforcement against the individual directors, holding that a managing director of an infringing company cannot be considered a 'third party' under Article 63 EPGÜ for intermediary liability purposes.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
Procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court joining an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation for joint hearing. Cretes NV, holder of European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152, brought an infringement action against Hyler BV, which filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of those patents. The court ordered both proceedings to be heard together under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA and Rule 37(2) RoP for reasons of efficiency and consistent patent interpretation.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning a confidentiality request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4108782. The plaintiffs sought to restrict access to exhibit BP 34 (a license agreement and related agreements) to only the defendant's legal representatives under an 'Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only' regime. The court granted the request, finding that the parties had mutually agreed to a confidentiality regime comparable to the Protective Order in the parallel US proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH & SSAB Europe Oy
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an application for provisional measures filed by Tiroler Rohre GmbH regarding EP 2 839 083 against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy. After the oral hearing where the court indicated concerns about granting the order, the applicant withdrew the application. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the applicant to bear all procedural costs including the costs of the protective letter filed by the defendants.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning a confidentiality request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4108782. The plaintiffs sought to restrict access to exhibit BP 34 (a license agreement and related agreements) to outside attorneys only, and the court granted the request, finding that the parties had mutually agreed to a confidentiality regime comparable to the Protective Order in the parallel US proceedings.
Qualcomm Incorporated (Application for Reimbursement of Court Fees) v.Ex Parte
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application seeking reimbursement of court fees after the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court closed its action against a European Patent Office decision, which had been rectified during the proceedings. The Court had previously closed the case under R. 91.2 RoP without ordering reimbursement. The Court dismissed Qualcomm's subsequent application, holding that it could not review its own previous order on the same subject-matter, and noted that the order could be appealed.
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.