European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 42 of 67 · 2,007 total
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. & Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the allocation of costs after Meril submitted a cease and desist declaration during provisional measures proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences over European Patent EP 3 763 331. The Court of Appeal held that when a defendant submits a cease and desist declaration after proceedings are initiated, the plaintiff is generally the prevailing party, and dismissed Meril's appeal, ordering Meril to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o., and TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 863 637. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Munich) admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file through the Claimant's representatives, subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on an application by Samsung under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in a patent infringement action brought by US-based Headwater Research LLC concerning EP 2 391 947. The Court found that Headwater, a non-practicing entity with no assets other than patents used in worldwide litigation, failed to substantively challenge the Defendants' concerns about cost recoverability. The Court ordered Headwater to deposit €100,000 as security for costs within three weeks.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. and Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application by Access Advance LLC, administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 863 637. The court admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 645 714 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a legal interest and that allowing it would circumvent a non-disclosure agreement and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich admitted the intervention in support of the Claimant, subject to strict confidentiality restrictions limiting Access Advance's access to certain sensitive information.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others (Access Advance LLC, Applicant)
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of an HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a sufficient legal interest and that allowing intervention would circumvent an NDA and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich granted the application to intervene, subject to strict confidentiality protections and procedural conditions.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order concerns an application by EOFLOW Co Ltd to intervene under Rule 313 RoP in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4201327 relating to a patch-insulin pump. The Milan Local Division dismissed the application to intervene, holding that the balance of interests favored a speedy decision in the interim proceedings, that Eoflow's arguments were already being addressed in parallel proceedings before the Milan Central Division, and that the provisional measures would only affect Eoflow indirectly.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co. Ltd (Request for Intervention by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.)
This procedural order from the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. to intervene in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against EOFLOW Co. Ltd regarding European Patent EP4201327. The Court first overruled Insulet's preliminary objection that the intervention application was inadmissible because it was filed in hard copy rather than electronically, finding that the CMS lacked a workflow for third-party interventions. On the merits, the Court rejected the intervention request, holding that intervention in interim injunction proceedings is only available in exceptional cases and that Menarini could adequately protect its interests in parallel proceedings before the Local Division Milan.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Eoflow Co Ltd Intervention)
Eoflow Co Ltd applied to intervene in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics concerning alleged infringement of EP 4201327 (a patch-insulin pump patent). The Milan Local Division dismissed the application to intervene, holding that the efficiency of the interim proceedings and the applicant's interest in a speedy decision outweighed Eoflow's interest in intervening, particularly since Eoflow was already a defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Milan Central Division.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure filed by Xiaomi entities against an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The dispute centered on the extension of deadlines for the defendants' rejoinder (Duplik) under Rule 29(d) RoP in three patent infringement proceedings before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Xiaomi had not sufficiently demonstrated that the Local Chamber Mannheim incorrectly interpreted the Rules of Procedure or exceeded its discretionary powers.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action (UPC_CFI_164/2024) concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, applied for an order requiring the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, to provide security for legal costs. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) granted the application, finding credible evidence that Suinno's financial situation posed a real risk that any costs order would be unrecoverable, and ordered Suinno to provide security of EUR 300,000 within one month. The Court also declared inadmissible Suinno's counter-request seeking reciprocal security from Microsoft.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Volkswagen AG's request for rectification of a prior order that had directed Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in three related proceedings. Volkswagen sought to have the order rectified to include a notification under R.158.4 RoP that failure to provide security could result in a decision by default under R.355 RoP. The Court of Appeal declined rectification but issued a separate order providing the required notification to NST.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning notification pursuant to Rule 158.4 RoP in proceedings involving three European patents. Audi AG had requested rectification of a prior order that required NST to provide security for costs, seeking inclusion of a notification that failure to provide security could result in a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The Court declined to rectify the original order but provided the notification separately to NST.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The defendants (Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH) sought leave to file further written observations by October 28, 2024, in response to the Court of Appeal's order of September 25, 2024 in case UPC_CoA_182/2024. The presiding judge rejected the application, finding that the Court of Appeal's order provided no basis for allowing further pleadings in the main proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against Optoma entities before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534. Before the defendants' deadline to respond or file a counterclaim for revocation, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement. The defendants consented to the withdrawal and the plaintiff's cost proposals, and the court issued an order terminating the proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP3024163, owned by Panasonic Holdings Corporation, against ten Xiaomi entities. The defendants sought a stay of proceedings under Rule 295(l) and/or (m) RoP pending the UK High Court of Justice's decision on the final terms of a FRAND license agreement. The presiding judge and rapporteur referred the matter to the full panel, proposing that the decision be made during or after the already scheduled oral hearings in late November 2024 and late January 2025.
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 an infringement action based on European Patent No. 3 215 288. The plaintiffs sought to amend their claims under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure following the final judgment of the German Federal Patent Court, which had invalidated the device claim but maintained the use claim. The court largely allowed the amendments but rejected the addition of a claim for indirect infringement of the process claim, finding that this could have been brought with the original lawsuit.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the proper defendant for a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent No. 3 215 288 before the Local Chamber Munich. Vibrantz GmbH filed its revocation counterclaim against Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff 2), the registered patent proprietor, rather than against Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff 1), the undisputed substantive proprietor. The court rejected Heraeus Precious Metals' applications to dismiss the counterclaim as manifestly inadmissible, holding that under Rules 25.1, 42, and 8.6 RoP, a revocation counterclaim may validly be directed against the registered proprietor.
Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the confirmation of an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices. The Court of Appeal rejected Mammut's appeal, finding that Ortovox had not engaged in unreasonable delay in seeking interim measures and that the requirements for provisional relief were met. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and to pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices (LVS-Geräte). Ortovox had obtained an ex parte interim injunction against Mammut before the Local Division Düsseldorf, which was confirmed on review. Mammut appealed the confirmation, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Mammut had waited too long before seeking review and that the interim measures were justified. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Unilever France v.I.G.B. S.r.l.
Procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning a request by Unilever France to modify its claims regarding ancillary measures in an infringement action brought by I.G.B. S.r.l. relating to European patent EP3997002. The court held that Rule 263 RoP did not apply because Unilever's modifications concerned only the modalities of execution of ancillary measures and did not alter the object or scope of the dispute.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in SEP/FRAND litigation. OPPO and OROPE appealed the Local Division Mannheim's refusal to order Panasonic to produce various license agreements. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could change at a later stage.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Ex Parte
Procedural Order
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Chamber Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that, at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, but left open the possibility that a different assessment could be reached at a later stage when FRAND-related issues are addressed.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under R.190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that at the current stage of the proceedings, where the question of basic licensing willingness had not yet been decided, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could differ at a later stage.
SWAT Medical AB and Erik Krahbichler v.Meril Italy srl, Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The applicants, SWAT Medical AB and its board member Erik Krahbichler, sought access under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure to all written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 4 151 181 between the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The presiding judge-rapporteur rejected the application, holding that operating in the same field as the patent was insufficient to establish a specific interest and that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicants' general interest in information.
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1 regarding the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the Rejoinder and specific exhibits as confidential and restricted access to designated representatives of the Applicant, Valeo Electrification. The court denied the Applicant's request to grant access to an additional lawyer, Thierry Lautier, who was not actively involved in the proceedings.
KIPA AB - Request for Access to Pleadings and Evidence (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited and Others)
KIPA AB filed a request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to access written pleadings and evidence in proceedings concerning EP 2 628 464 B1, a patent owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation relating to prosthetic heart valves. Both the claimant and defendants opposed the request, arguing it lacked a concrete and legitimate reason and that the applicant's company (SWAT Medical AB) operated in an unrelated field. The Court of First Instance rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's general interest in accessing the materials.
KIPA AB - Request for Access to Pleadings and Evidence (UPC_CFI_8/2023) v.Ex Parte
This procedural order concerns a request by KIPA AB (with co-applicant SWAT Medical AB) for access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (claimant) and Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited and others (defendants) concerning EP 2 628 464. Both the claimant and defendants opposed the request. The Court rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in obtaining access at that stage, while granting leave to appeal.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Volkswagen AG's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to dismiss infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Volkswagen had raised preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and the validity of opt-out withdrawals, and had sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP on grounds that NST lacked standing and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to defer preliminary objections to the main proceedings, and that Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and does not require a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
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.