European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 41 of 67 · 2,007 total
Dehns (Application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in Sanofi-Aventis v.Amgen revocation proceedings)
Dehns, a law firm representing clients before the Unified Patent Court, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to all written pleadings and evidence from a concluded revocation action between Sanofi-Aventis entities and Amgen concerning European patent EP 3 666 797. The Judge-rapporteur granted access to the written pleadings and evidence (subject to redaction of personal data) but rejected the request for other procedural documents that did not qualify as written pleadings or evidence.
Dehns (Application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.)
Dehns, a firm of UPC representatives, applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence lodged in revocation and counterclaim for revocation proceedings between Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Amgen, Inc. concerning European patent EP 3 666 797. The Court of First Instance granted access to the written pleadings and evidence, applying the general principles established by the Court of Appeal in Ocado/Autostore, but rejected the request for other documents that did not qualify as written pleadings or evidence.
Dehns (Application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in Sanofi-Aventis v.Amgen revocation proceedings)
Dehns, a firm of UPC representatives, applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence lodged in a revocation action between Sanofi-Aventis entities and Amgen concerning European patent EP 3 666 797, which had been decided on 16 July 2024. The Court of First Instance (Central Division, Munich) granted access to the written pleadings and evidence after redaction of personal data, but rejected the request in respect of other listed documents (such as administrative letters, formal checks, and proof of payment) that did not qualify as written pleadings or evidence within the meaning of Rule 262.1(b).
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed SharkNinja's application to introduce new evidence (FBD 29) in appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 043 492. The evidence consisted of annexes to a brief filed by Dyson's representative in US proceedings, which SharkNinja argued was relevant to show contradictory positions taken by Dyson regarding claim interpretation. The court held that SharkNinja failed to convincingly demonstrate the relevance of the new evidence and that submissions in other proceedings do not render a party's positions in the present case contradictory.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Freesites Ltd, Brockwell Group LLC, Bridgemaze Group LLC and others
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected the plaintiffs' (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) applications for production orders requiring defendants to disclose source code of media players used under Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Safari browsers in connection with their streaming services. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient need for the requested source code, as the Microsoft Edge source code was publicly accessible and the plaintiffs could obtain it themselves, while for Safari they should rely on Charles Proxy recordings.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring certain defendants to provide information about the design and encoding scheme of video files accessible through their streaming services. The court rejected the application, finding that the requests constituted impermissible fishing expeditions, that the plaintiffs had not exhausted all reasonably available information sources, and that the current state of the proceedings regarding patent interpretation, infringement, and validity did not justify burdening the defendants with such an information order.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, Brockwell Group LLC, Bridgemaze Group LLC and others
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking information from defendants regarding which Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) they use for their streaming services, the locations of CDN servers, and how video files are encoded on those servers. The court held that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their own investigative possibilities and that the current stage of proceedings regarding patent interpretation, infringement, and validity did not justify burdening the defendants with the requested information order.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This decision of the Local Chamber Munich concerns the assessment of costs for appeal proceedings (APL_8/2024, UPC_CoA_1/2024). The Hanshow entities filed their cost assessment application on June 18, 2024, more than one month after the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on May 13, 2024, thereby missing the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP. The court rejected both the request for retroactive extension of the deadline under Rule 9.3(a) RoP and the cost assessment application itself, holding that re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP is the lex specialis remedy that takes precedence over a general extension request.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking revocation of European Patent EP 2 794 928 B1 owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, relating to compositions and methods for detecting analytes. The court rejected the defendant's preliminary objection on lis pendens related to a parallel German revocation action and refused permission for a subsequent application to amend the patent. The Central Division held that the main request lacked novelty over the prior art document Göransson, and that the auxiliary requests lacked inventive step, revoking the patent in its entirety.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that refused to declare Suinno's patent infringement action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP, based on an alleged lack of independence of Suinno's representative. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that the manifest inadmissibility standard under R. 361 RoP must be reserved for clear-cut cases and that Microsoft failed to demonstrate that discretionary review was necessary, particularly since the independence issue was already the subject of a pending appeal.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures and a preliminary injunction against ASUSTek Computer Inc., Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Arvato Netherlands B.V. before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1 through the sale of laptops and notebooks containing Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX211 and Wi-Fi 6 AX201 modules. The Defendants challenged the competence of the Lisbon Local Division, denied infringement, asserted invalidity of the patent, and argued lack of urgency due to Ericsson's unreasonable delay. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Ericsson had delayed unreasonably in seeking provisional measures, thereby failing to establish urgency.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declared an appeal inadmissible for lack of prior authorization from the Court of First Instance. Photon Wave had appealed a procedural order (ORD_41423/2024) issued by the Paris Local Division in proceedings concerning EP 3 404 726, but the Court of First Instance had merely included a general reference to Rule 220.2 RoP without expressly granting leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal held that such authorization must be expressly granted and cannot be presumed.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 198 245 B1 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP requiring Orbisk B.V. to produce documents in infringement proceedings. The Judge-Rapporteur found a prima facie case of infringement but held that the request was too broad in certain respects. The court partially granted the request, ordering Orbisk to produce specific technical specification documents regarding categorisation of disposal events and detection/correction of erroneous weights, while protecting confidentiality interests.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno
Unified Patent Court decision.
SWAT Medical AB v.Meril Italy S.r.l., Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Meril Gmbh, and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
SWAT Medical AB and its board member/investor applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for public access to all pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 646 825. The respondents opposed the application, seeking rejection or limitations on access and confidentiality conditions. The Court of First Instance granted the applications, allowing access to all pleadings and evidence, but granted leave to appeal and suspended the effects of the order pending any appeal.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 198 245 B1 concerning a system and method for monitoring food waste, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP requiring Orbisk B.V. to produce documents related to its allegedly infringing Orbi food waste monitoring system. The Local Division The Hague partially granted the request, finding a prima facie case of infringement but limiting the order to specific technical specification documents regarding categorisation of disposal events and detection/correction of erroneous weights.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. The defendant, CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, requested extensions of the preliminary objection deadline and the deadline for filing a statement of defense and counterclaim. The court rejected both requests, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying an extension under the strict time regime of the Rules of Procedure.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, which relates to a device and method for measuring the straightness of rod-shaped workpieces. Following the complete revocation of the patent by the EPO Board of Appeal on July 4, 2024, the claimant withdrew the infringement action and the defendant sought a declaration that the counterclaim had become moot. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared both proceedings terminated, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and granted each party a 60% reimbursement of court fees (€6,600.00 each).
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court following the rejection of SES-imagotag SA's application for interim measures against four Hanshow group companies. The court assessed the recoverable costs of the prevailing respondents (Hanshow entities) at €200,000, applying a plausibility check rather than requiring minute-by-hour breakdowns, and rejecting the applicant's arguments regarding excessive representation and non-recoverable interpretation costs.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns an application by Abbott under Rule 263 RoP for leave to amend its case following the release of version 4.12.0 of the LibreLinkUp application on September 26, 2024. DexCom opposed the application, arguing it was untimely and would unreasonably hinder its preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for October 30, 2024. The Judge-rapporteur dismissed Abbott's application, finding that while the first condition of Rule 263 (reasonable diligence) was met, the second condition (not unreasonably hindering the other party) was not satisfied given the proximity to the oral hearing.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. & Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This case concerns a panel review of a confidentiality order in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to extend access to confidential information to two US-based attorneys and to future confidential submissions, arguing that excluding them violated its fundamental judicial rights. The Panel rejected the application to dismiss the procedural orders, upheld the restriction on access by the US attorneys, and granted the Defendants' request to replace the redacted version of the Statement of Defence, while granting leave to appeal.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringement of European Patent No. 3 223 320 B1, which relates to a light emitting diode. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked the patent for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, rejected the plaintiff's requests for amendment, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 1793917 before the Local Division in Düsseldorf, the Defendant (Aarke AB) requested an adjournment of the oral hearing pending the Court of Appeal's decision on its dismissed request for security for costs. The Court dismissed the request for adjournment, holding that since an order concerning security for costs is not listed in Art. 74(3) UPCA, there is no requirement to await a final order of the Court of Appeal before rendering its own decision on the merits.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, which relates to a light emitting diode. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, information disclosure, destruction of infringing products, and damages, while declining to require security from the plaintiff.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
EOFlow appealed an order of the Central Division Milan that denied its request to join two parallel provisional measures proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327. EOFlow additionally requested the Court of Appeal to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines so that a decision could be issued before the scheduled oral hearings in the first instance. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that EOFlow had unnecessarily delayed filing its appeal and had not sufficiently taken into account the respondent's right to file a response.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 043 492, a patent dispute between SharkNinja (appellant/defendant) and Dyson Technology Limited (respondent/claimant). The Court of Appeal rejected Dyson's application to disregard several grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja, finding them sufficiently indicated in the statement of grounds. However, the court excluded two new pieces of evidence (FBD 27 and FBD 28) submitted by SharkNinja, finding they were not convincingly shown to be relevant and were submitted with undue delay.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's request for discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that granted Microsoft's request for security for costs and declared Suinno's own request for security inadmissible. The Court of Appeal held that Suinno was required to first request the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal before seeking discretionary review, and since Suinno failed to do so, its request was inadmissible.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This order concerns procedural applications filed in revocation proceedings related to European patent No. 4 151 181 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sought a 9-day extension of the deadline for lodging its rejoinder to align it with another deadline, but the respondents (Meril entities) opposed the request. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, holding that procedural efficiency must yield to the principle of fair trial, as granting the extension would create an imbalance since the claimants had already complied with the shorter, standard deadline.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Preliminary order of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) in an infringement action concerning EP patent 3 977 921 B1, relating to diabetes monitoring technology. The court dismissed Abbott's application to amend its prayer for relief, dismissed its application for an order to communicate information under Rule 191 RoP, and dismissed the defendants' grounds for revocation based on the Heller document. The court set procedural deadlines and scheduled the oral hearing for 19 December 2024.
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.