European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 43 of 54 · 1,592 total
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for a complex UPC case involving Panasonic and various Xiaomi entities regarding EP 2 568 724. The court has meticulously structured the oral proceedings, dedicating the first day to technical issues like patent validity and infringement, and the second day to the critical FRAND licensing framework. This detailed planning highlights the complexity of modern SEP litigation within the UPC.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung), the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf decided to consolidate the proceedings between Grundfos Holding A/S and Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court ruled that it would jointly examine both the infringement claim brought by Grundfos and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu. This decision aims to enhance procedural efficiency, ensuring a unified legal interpretation across both claims.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated initiated proceedings at the UPC to annul a decision made by the European Patent Office regarding patent EP3516914. However, the EPO subsequently rectified the contested decision in line with Qualcomm's request. Consequently, the Court of First Instance closed the action without further deliberation or consultation of the parties. This case highlights the procedural mechanism within the UPC for handling actions against decisions of the EPO when those decisions are corrected by the Office.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Stephen George Edrich, Cooper Marc Gary, McKenna Paul John
In this UPC case, Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin and associated entities for infringing its patent EP 2 867 997 B1 concerning wireless inductive power transfer systems. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent by the defendants' products. Furthermore, the defendants' counterclaims seeking to invalidate the patent were also rejected. This decision reaffirms the scope and validity of the asserted technology while concluding that the specific accused products do not meet the criteria for infringement.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues arising from a patent infringement suit filed by Headwater Research LLC against several Motorola and Flextronics entities. The core dispute centered on the incorrect initial naming of one defendant, 'Lenovo EMEA DC,' which was later corrected to 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.' The court ruled that this error did not bar the proceedings but instead ordered a formal correction of the name and address in the case file. Furthermore, the court granted an application to update the registered business address for another defendant.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. s.p.a.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH successfully obtained a provisional measure from the UPC Local Division in Milan, securing an order to preserve evidence and inspect premises of Danieli Group companies. The applicant sought this ex-parte order based on strong suspicion that the defendants' products infringed EP 2624977, which covers drivers for steel strip coiling installations. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's willingness to grant early investigative measures when a clear prima facie case of infringement and patent validity exists.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed an issue where the claimant initially misidentified one of its defendants as 'Lenovo EMEA DC' instead of 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.'. The respondents argued that this error rendered the claim inadmissible against that party. However, the court found that this was merely a naming error and not a fatal procedural defect. Consequently, the court corrected the defendant's name and address, ordered re-service of the claim, and allowed the infringement proceedings to continue.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a procedural dispute concerning deadlines in parallel UPC proceedings involving Xiaomi and Panasonic. The defendants sought an extension of time for their Duplik, arguing that delays caused by confidentiality orders prevented timely preparation. However, the court rejected this request, maintaining that while delayed access must be compensated, it does not automatically entitle the parties to the full statutory period. This ruling reinforces the principle of efficient case management within the UPC framework.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC infringement case between Huawei and Netgear, the court issued an order revoking a previous decision to appoint a translation expert. The revocation was based on the parties' mutual agreement that critical Chinese-language documents related to the patent were identical. This procedural step simplifies the ongoing litigation, allowing the case to proceed without the need for external linguistic verification.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Oclean) in the UPC regarding its electric toothbrush patent EP3197316. The case centered on whether Oclean's toothbrushes infringed claims related to providing motivational feedback based on brushing data. Although the court granted the immediate cessation order, it stipulated that main proceedings must be initiated promptly, highlighting the procedural requirements for provisional measures in UPC litigation.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd. in the UPC regarding its electric toothbrush patent (EP3197316). The case centered on alleged infringement by Oclean's toothbrushes, despite previous settlement efforts. This decision underscores the effectiveness of provisional measures in swiftly addressing ongoing market infringements within the unified European patent system.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Stephen George Edrich; Belkin GmbH; Belkin International, Inc; Belkin Limited; Marc Gary Cooper; Paul John McKenna
This UPC decision is a procedural order concerning the infringement case involving Philips IP Ventures B.V. against several defendants, including Belkin GmbH. The core issue addressed was the request to postpone the oral hearing due to parallel proceedings and process efficiency considerations. The court granted this request, rescheduling the hearing for October 23, 2024. This highlights the UPC's procedural mechanisms allowing parties and the court to manage complex litigation schedules.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In a significant preliminary order, the UPC Local Division Hamburg rejected the request by Tandem Diabetes Care to stay an infringement action concerning its t:slim X2 insulin pump. The court emphasized the efficiency of the UPC system, stating that it is appropriate for the local division to hear both the infringement claim and the pending revocation actions simultaneously. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural delays should not impede the pursuit of patent rights when a joint hearing can ensure a uniform legal outcome.
Novartis AG v.Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft.
In this UPC case concerning a pharmaceutical formulation patent (EP 3 805 248 B1), Novartis and Genentech sought provisional measures against the Celltrion group, alleging imminent infringement. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the application for provisional measures. The court determined that since no prior order had been issued, the requirements for interim relief under Rule 213.1 RoP were not met. This decision highlights the strict procedural prerequisites required before a party can seek urgent protective measures in UPC proceedings.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed requests for the expedition of appeals concerning the validity of European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to a prosthetic heart valve. The court ultimately rejected Meril's pleas for an expedited timeline. The ruling reinforces that procedural concerns regarding potential injunction risks must be managed through existing mechanisms within the UPC, rather than solely relying on accelerated timetables.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addressed requests for expedition in multiple appeals concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent covering a prosthetic heart valve. The court ultimately rejected Meril's pleas to accelerate the proceedings, citing that existing legal mechanisms could manage the risks associated with pending validity challenges. This decision reinforces the standard procedural timetable of the UPC unless exceptional circumstances are met.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
This UPC decision addressed a request by the Defendant, Aarke AB, to impose security for legal costs against the Claimant, SodaStream Industries Ltd., in an ongoing infringement action. The Court of First Instance dismissed the panel review application, confirming that the initial judge-rapporteur correctly found no sufficient grounds (financial risk or unenforceability) to mandate security. This ruling reinforces the standard that financial capability and lack of evidence regarding bad faith are key factors when assessing cost security requests in UPC proceedings.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding jurisdiction within the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Advanced Bionics sought to transfer an infringement case to the Central Board to coordinate proceedings with a parallel revocation action. The UPC Appeals Board rejected this request, emphasizing that Article 33 of the EPC mandates party consent for such a jurisdictional shift. This ruling reinforces the strict adherence to procedural rules over convenience in managing complex litigation.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH; S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG sought provisional measures against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, alleging that their product infringed on EP 3 685 783 B1 related to laser fibers for vein treatment. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately denied the request for an injunction. The court found that the claimant did not meet the necessary threshold of demonstrating exceptional harm or irreparable damage required for provisional relief, despite the long-standing competition.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed an application by Advanced Bionics to change the proceedings language from German to English, matching the patent's language. The court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while factors like industry standard language (English) and the patent language are considered, they do not override considerations such as parties' domicile and existing procedural arrangements. This case reinforces the UPC's discretionary approach to language changes, requiring a careful balancing of interests rather than relying solely on technical or commercial convenience.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC addressed a request for confidentiality protection. The Court granted access restrictions on specific technical and business information submitted by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., classifying it as confidential. While rejecting the defendant's motion that all highlighted portions were secret, the ruling established strict rules governing who could view this sensitive data. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to balancing urgent proceedings with robust protection of proprietary information.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses procedural requests made by Xiaomi regarding confidentiality protections for third-party license agreements related to EP 2568724. The court denied Xiaomi's request for enhanced access restrictions and preliminary injunctions against a former defendant. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural timelines, stating that parties must act early when seeking complex protective measures like those under Rule 262A VerfO.
AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This UPC appeal decision addresses complex issues of international jurisdiction in patent infringement cases involving internet-based services. The court provided a clear interpretation of how Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation applies to digital infringement, stating that potential damage can arise from accessing services within the member state where the patent is effective. This ruling provides significant guidance for practitioners dealing with cross-border streaming and software patents.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought to expand its infringement lawsuit against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH to include OTECH Germany GmbH. The UPC Local Division of Munich rejected the request for party change, citing procedural issues and process economics. While the claimant argued lack of prior knowledge regarding OTECH's activities, the court maintained that the delay was not justifiable and suggested a new separate action could be filed if necessary.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This procedural order addressed an application by Magna entities seeking to replace the allocated technically qualified judge (TQJ) in a provisional measures case against Valeo. Magna argued for a TQJ with specific mechanical engineering expertise. The UPC President dismissed this request, clarifying that parties are generally bound to their appointed judges and cannot object based merely on technical background unless grounds of partiality exist under Article 7.4 UPCA. This decision reinforces the strict procedural rules governing judge allocation within the Unified Patent Court.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In this UPC decision, Avago Technologies sued Tesla regarding the infringement of EP 1 838 002, a patent covering programmable hybrid transmitters. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Tesla, declaring the patent invalid for Germany because its claims were anticipated by prior art (D3). This ruling not only dismissed the infringement claim but also established a significant precedent regarding the enforceability of patents facing strong prior art challenges within the UPC framework.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH; Netgear Inc.; Netgear International Limited
Huawei Technologies initiated an infringement action against Netgear entities regarding the Wi-Fi 6 standard, asserting ownership of EP 3 611 989, which is declared essential for the standard. The defendants raised multiple counterclaims, including invalidity and non-infringement arguments. The UPC Local Division in Munich issued a procedural order setting the case for oral hearings in October 2024 and appointing an expert to translate complex technical documents, indicating that the case will proceed to detailed examination.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In this UPC procedural order, Ona Patents SL successfully sought protection for confidential information against Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries. The court confirmed that sensitive data, including internal profit margins and specific technical details about product functionalities, qualifies as a trade secret under Article 58 EPC. This ruling reinforces the scope of trade secret protection in the UPC, clarifying that even negative statements or limited access to specialized knowledge can warrant confidentiality.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Hand Held Products sought an injunction against Scandit AG for infringing EP 3 866 051, a patent covering digital scanning devices. The Munich Local Court analyzed the possibility of indirect infringement stemming from the software library. Ultimately, the court denied the request for interim measures, finding that the complexity and variability in hardware/software configuration prevented the necessary certainty required to establish direct liability against the respondent.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited
This UPC decision addresses critical procedural aspects within an application for provisional measures concerning a herbicide composition patent. The court clarified the burden of proof for product claims, stating that applicants do not need to prove why the composition has all features, only that it does or will. It also set strict limits on validity challenges in summary proceedings, requiring respondents to narrow their arguments to three key points. These rulings provide important guidance for practitioners navigating urgent infringement actions at the UPC.
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.