European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 43 of 67 · 2,007 total
KIPA AB v.Ex Parte
This procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by KIPA AB (along with co-applicant SWAT Medical AB) for access to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (claimant) and Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited and others (defendants) concerning EP 2 628 464. The applicant sought access as a member of the public and competitor in the cardiac implant technology field. 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.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the President of the Court of First Instance that had rejected Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 263 098. The Court of Appeal held that fairness required English to be used as the language of proceedings, given that the patent was granted in English, Apple's internal working language and technical support were in English, and Ona Patents would not face any disadvantage from a change to English.
KIPA AB - Request for Access to Pleadings and Evidence (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited et al.)
An applicant (identified as KIPA AB) requested access to all written pleadings and evidence in proceedings concerning EP 2 628 464 B1, a patent owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Both the Claimant and Defendants opposed the request, arguing it lacked specificity and a credible legitimate interest. The Court of First Instance rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in accessing the materials, while granting leave to appeal.
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
Google appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court that rejected its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2 263 098). The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the President CFI had incorrectly assessed fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA, and ordered that English be used as the language of the proceedings.
KIPA AB (Application for Access to Pleadings and Evidence in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited et al.)
This procedural order concerns an application by KIPA AB under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in patent infringement proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited et al. concerning EP2628464. Both the Claimant and Defendants opposed the request, arguing it was overly broad and lacked a credible, specific justification. The Court rejected the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's general interest in obtaining access, while granting leave to appeal.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Audi AG's appeal against orders of the Munich Local Division that had dismissed Audi's preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP in three parallel patent infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Audi had argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over damages claimed in the UK and Northern Ireland, that the opt-out withdrawal was invalid due to lack of power of attorney, that NST lacked standing for pre-acquisition damages, and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the timing of preliminary objection decisions is within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and not for evaluating the sufficiency of claim substantiation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order concerns Dexcom's request to amend its counter claim for revocation in proceedings involving EP 4 070 727 B1. After Abbott withdrew part of its infringement claim regarding the Dexcom G7-System with a G7-Receiver, Dexcom sought to add a declaration of non-infringement for that product combination. The Judge-Rapporteur granted leave to amend, finding Dexcom could not reasonably have filed the amendment earlier, and allowed Abbott 30 days to respond.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in an underlying infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, sought panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order rejecting its application to have the claimant's action declared manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order, holding that the alleged lack of independence of the claimant's representative and the alleged insufficiency of the statement of claim did not meet the threshold of 'manifest' inadmissibility. The panel also declined to grant leave to appeal or refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Access under R. 262.1(b) RoP – Ballinno B.V. v.UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH)
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to the written pleadings and evidence filed in a concluded provisional measures proceeding (Ballinno B.V. v UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) concerning EP1944067. The Defendants did not oppose access but requested that grey-highlighted technical data be kept confidential as trade secrets. The Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) granted the application, providing access to redacted versions of the substantive filings while ordering that the highlighted technical information be treated as strictly confidential.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Audi AG's applications for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court held that NST, a small US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity with only two employees, no physical assets, and limited funding, failed to provide sufficient comfort that a possible cost order would be recoverable. The Court ordered NST to provide security for costs in amounts of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000, and EUR 300,000 in the three related proceedings, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank, within three weeks of service.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected the plaintiff's application to examine its own party expert as a witness in the oral hearing concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff sought the examination after the close of the interim proceedings, arguing that the deadline for its reply on the FRAND counterclaim was insufficient to address the opposing party's expert opinion. The court held that the application was procedurally improper and that the named person was not to be examined as a witness but rather to present expert opinions, which is not permissible under the Rules of Procedure.
Dexcom International Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of the Court of First Instance in The Hague concerning a counter claim for revocation related to European Patent EP 4 070 727 B1. Dexcom sought leave to amend their counter claim to add a declaration of non-infringement regarding the Dexcom G7-System used with the G7-Receiver, following Abbott's withdrawal of that portion of its infringement claim. The Judge-Rapporteur granted leave to amend, finding Dexcom could not reasonably have filed the amendment earlier, and allowed Abbott 30 days to respond.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This appeal concerned a dispute over European patent EP 2 044 709 B1, which had effect only in Germany. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that while Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply to UPC proceedings during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, they did not require the UPC to decline jurisdiction because the German revocation action and the UPC proceedings did not involve the same parties. However, the Court of Appeal granted Mala's auxiliary request to stay the UPC revocation proceedings pending a final decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the parallel German revocation proceedings.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Volkswagen AG's requests for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity. The Court held that NST's failure to provide sufficient comfort regarding its ability to cover potential cost orders justified ordering security, and that the relative financial positions of the parties are not a criterion under R.158 RoP. NST was ordered to provide security of EUR 100,000 in two cases and EUR 300,000 in the third, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank within three weeks.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court reviewed a confidentiality order issued in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. While the panel agreed that the documents (a patent license agreement and a patent purchase & licence agreement) contained business secrets worthy of protection, it set aside the confidentiality order because the respondent's representative was simultaneously its managing director and main shareholder, lacking the independence required under Article 48(5) of the UPCA and Article 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct. The application for confidentiality was declared inadmissible, though those already admitted to the confidentiality ring remained bound by non-disclosure obligations, and leave to appeal was granted.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This order concerns procedural applications filed in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 4 151 181. The applicants (Meril entities) sought to have the respondent's (Edwards Lifesciences) counterclaim for infringement declared inadmissible as it was filed after the two-month deadline under Rule 49 of the Rules of Procedure. The judge-rapporteur rejected the application and retrospectively extended the deadline to 23 July 2024 under Rule 9(3)(a) RoP, finding that technical issues with the CMS constituted exceptional circumstances beyond the respondent's reasonable control.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order concerns Oerlikon's application under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure to file an eighth auxiliary request (AR8) to amend European Patent EP 2 145 848 B1 in infringement proceedings against Himson Engineering. The court refused the application, finding that AR8 was not an effective response to the new prior art attack based on US '795, could have been introduced earlier with respect to DE '042, was not capable of influencing the outcome, and violated Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC.
Anonymous Claimant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Court of First Instance, Local Division Brussels) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 331 036. Following an Interim Conference, the court addressed settlement prospects, evidence offers, the value of the case, and guidelines for the oral hearing. The court determined the value of the case at €250,000, rejected one evidence offer as moot, and set detailed procedural directions for the upcoming oral hearing.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court on September 16, 2024, in case UPC_CFI_210/2023 concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, sets out preparations for the oral hearing, including scheduling, hearing structure, participation logistics, language arrangements, and the value in dispute. The value in dispute was set at over 50 million euros, taking into account the defendants' FRAND counterclaim and the plaintiff's related applications.
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 is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court on September 16, 2024, in preparation for the oral hearing in case UPC_CFI_219/2023 concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff Panasonic Holdings Corporation is pursuing infringement claims against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies. The order sets out the structure of the hearing, covering technical aspects (including validity and infringement) on the first day and FRAND-related issues on the second day, along with logistical arrangements for participation, language, and submissions.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed a revocation action against ITCiCo Spain S.L. concerning European patent EP 2 796 333, which relates to a graded control signal system for warning a vehicle user of speeding conditions. After the defendant failed to file a defence within the prescribed time limit and its request for an extension of time was rejected, BMW requested a decision by default. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) granted the default decision, revoked the patent in its entirety for lacking novelty and inventive step over prior art, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited & Others
ICPillar LLC appealed a Court of First Instance order requiring it to provide security for costs (EUR 400,000) in its patent infringement action against ARM entities before the Paris Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the Insurance Policy submitted for the first time on appeal would be disregarded under R.222.2 RoP, and that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank did not constitute adequate security under R.158 RoP.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Paris Central Division) seeking annulment of a decision of the European Patent Office dated 10 July 2024. The EPO subsequently rectified the contested decision in accordance with Qualcomm's request during interlocutory revision. The court closed the case without prior consultation of the parties and without ordering reimbursement of the action fee.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc. and Others
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 B1 concerning wireless inductive power transfer. The Local Chamber Munich found that Belkin's Qi-standard compliant wireless chargers infringed the patent, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaims for invalidity. The court ordered injunctions, information disclosure, and provisional damages of EUR 119,000, but limited the territorial scope to exclude acts within Germany.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court decided, pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by Grundfos Holding A/S and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. jointly before the same panel.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court addressed whether the originally named fifth defendant, 'Lenovo EMEA DC,' was a party capable of being sued, and whether the plaintiff could correct the designation to Flextronics International Europe B.V. The court held that 'Lenovo EMEA DC' was a non-existent entity, not merely a misnomer, and ordered a party correction by analogous application of Rule 305 RoP, while also requiring re-service of the complaint to the corrected fifth defendant.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH (PTA), proprietor of European Patent EP 2624977 relating to a driver for a steel strip coiling installation, filed an ex parte application before the Local Division in Milan of the Unified Patent Court seeking an order to preserve evidence and inspect the premises of Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A. PTA alleged that a driver manufactured by the Danieli group and installed at Nucor Steel Gallatin in Kentucky, US, infringed claims of EP977. The Court granted the order, authorizing inspection of the defendants' premises, seizure of relevant documentation, and appointment of an expert, subject to a security deposit of 25,000 Euros.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 110 069. The court addressed whether the claimant's naming of 'Lenovo EMEA DC' as Defendant 5 constituted a mere misnomer or the naming of a non-existent party, and whether the case heading could be corrected to substitute 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.' The court applied Rule 305 RoP by analogy to correct the party designation but held that no effective service had been made, requiring re-service and granting the corrected Defendant 5 the full period to respond.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH et al.
This case concerns a review under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. The defendants (multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies) sought review of the reporting judge's order that only partially extended their deadline to file a rejoinder (Duplik) to the plaintiff's reply (Replik) on non-technical (FRAND) aspects. The court rejected the defendants' application, holding that the granted extension was adequate and that the full two-month period does not automatically restart from the date access to unredacted confidential information is granted.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought a preliminary injunction from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 197 316 B1, which relates to an oral cleaning system with motivation feedback for electric toothbrushes. Despite having previously issued a cease and desist declaration, the respondent was found to be exhibiting the infringing 'Oclean' toothbrush models at IFA 2024 in Berlin. The court granted the preliminary measures, ordering the respondent to cease offering and distributing the infringing products, imposing penalties of up to 250,000 EUR per violation, and requiring handover of infringing products at the trade fair.
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.