European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 44 of 67 · 2,007 total
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought interim injunctive relief against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of European Patent EP 3 197 316 B1, which covers an oral cleaning system (electric toothbrush) providing motivational feedback to users. After Yunding had previously given a cease and desist declaration acknowledging infringement but was found still exhibiting the infringing 'Oclean' toothbrushes at IFA 2024 in Berlin, the Local Chamber Hamburg granted the interim measures, ordering Yunding to cease offering, selling, importing, and possessing the infringing products across UPC member states, with penalties of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. The order revokes a prior direction appointing a translation expert after the parties agreed that the defendants' submitted translation could be used and that the relevant Chinese-language priority and application documents were identical with respect to the passages relevant to the dispute.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH & F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., & VitalAire GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 196 231, brought by Roche against Tandem Diabetes Care and VitalAire relating to the t:slim X2 insulin pump. The defendants sought a stay of the infringement proceedings pending parallel revocation actions before the Central Division Paris. The Local Division Hamburg dismissed both the request for a stay and the claimant's request to hear the infringement and revocation actions together, finding that the claimant's interest in continuing the proceedings outweighed the defendants' interest in a stay.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Stephen George Edrich, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc, Belkin Limited, Marc Gary Cooper, Paul John McKenna
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 2 372 863. The plaintiff, Philips IP Ventures B.V., requested postponement of the oral hearing originally scheduled for September 11, 2024, due to a rescheduled decision announcement in a parallel proceeding. The defendants consented, and the presiding judge granted the request, moving the hearing to October 23, 2024.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB (EP 1 793 917)
This case concerns a panel review of an order dismissing a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Defendant, Aarke AB, sought security of EUR 400,000, arguing that enforcement of a UPC cost order in Israel would be impossible or unduly burdensome due to the reciprocity requirement under Israeli law. The panel dismissed the application for review, finding that the Claimant (part of the PepsiCo group) was financially capable of complying with a cost order and that no sufficient facts supported a likelihood of unenforceability, while granting leave to appeal.
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. v.Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc.
Order
Meril Italy Srl, Meril GmbH, and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Central Division, Paris Seat, which had rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing the risk of an injunction in parallel infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, holding that the interests advanced by Meril did not justify shortening the procedural timetable at Edwards' expense.
Meril Italy Srl, Meril GmbH, and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) that rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing potential irreparable harm from a possible injunction in parallel infringement proceedings and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, finding that Meril's interests did not outweigh Edwards' legitimate interest in having the appeals proceed according to the regular timetable.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics SARL v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Advanced Bionics against the rejection of its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action concerning EP 4 074 373. The court held that the President of the Court of First Instance correctly refused the language change, given that the parties are based in countries where German is an official language, and that a change at this advanced stage of the proceedings would create practical difficulties.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Düsseldorf Local Chamber rejected the applicant's request for provisional measures (interim injunction) against the respondents regarding European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1, which covers an optical fiber for treating venous diseases. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate the substantive necessity of interim measures, as its arguments regarding lost market share and customer loyalty were speculative and did not establish that monetary compensation would be insufficient. The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, and appeal was permitted.
Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
Anordnung
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerns A. Menarini Diagnostics' request to classify certain portions of its Objection to an Application for provisional measures as confidential information. The Court granted confidentiality protection to both the technical descriptions of the Attacked Embodiment and Menarini's business figures, while establishing a restricted confidentiality club for access. The Court deferred the enforceability of the order to allow time for appeal.
AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appeal filed by AYLO entities against an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim rejecting their objections to jurisdiction. The court held that the UPC has international jurisdiction for an infringement action when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and the alleged damage may occur in that state, including via internet-based services accessible in that territory. The court also confirmed that the list of objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure is exhaustive and does not extend to arguments such as abusive conduct or manifest lack of merit.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH et al.
This order concerns a confidentiality protection application under Rule 262A RoP in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The Local Chamber Mannheim ruled that the defendants' submissions regarding two third-party license agreements, filed late in the Duplik, would be disregarded under Rule 9.2 RoP, and rejected the defendants' subsidiary request for production orders against a former defendant (a Hong Kong-based group company). The court held that parties must seek confidentiality protection and production orders early enough to make submissions within applicable deadlines.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court denied Panasonic Holdings Corporation's request under Rule 305 RoP to add OTECH Germany GmbH as a third defendant to its patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 024 163. The court found the request to add the new party was filed late and that the circumstances did not justify allowing the late addition, given the advanced stage of the proceedings and the potential prejudice to the existing defendants. The court permitted appeal, as the relevant questions had not yet been clarified by the Court of Appeal.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification (Procedural Application concerning Allocation of Technically Qualified Judge)
This procedural order concerns an application by the Magna entities (defendants in the main proceedings) for a review of the allocation of a technically qualified judge (TQJ) in proceedings where Valeo Electrification had sought provisional measures based on EP 3 320 604 B1. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, holding that parties cannot suggest the technical background of an allocated judge, and the only permissible ground for objecting to a judge is partiality under Article 7.4 UPCA.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent No. 1 838 002 B1 relating to a programmable hybrid transmitter. The defendants filed nullity counterclaims. The Local Chamber Munich held that the independent claims 1 and 7 were anticipated by prior art document D3, declared the patent null and void for Germany, rejected the requests for amendment, and dismissed the infringement claim, ordering Avago to bear the costs.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The defendants (Apple entities) sought to classify certain information as confidential trade secrets under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the request, holding that information regarding profit margins, technical functionalities of the accused products, and the identities of employees with access to such information qualifies as confidential, including negative facts stating that certain products do not support certain functionalities.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities concerning European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1, which relates to Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) standard technology. The defendants raised non-infringement, exhaustion, and FRAND/competition law defenses, along with three counterclaims for revocation. The order addresses procedural matters including deadlines for submissions, appointment of a court expert for translations, and scheduling of the oral hearing.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Hand Held Products, Inc. sought interim measures against Scandit AG for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 866 051 concerning indicia-reading devices. The Local Chamber Munich found indirect infringement of claim 10 based on Scandit's software development kit (SDK) and issued a relative prohibition against offering/supplying the SDK for use in certain UPC member states, subject to a EUR 500,000 security deposit by the applicant.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The court granted Hewlett-Packard Development Company's request to hear a witness at the oral hearing, who was the author of written attestations already produced and whose evidentiary value was contested by LAMA France. The court rejected LAMA France's request for simultaneous English-to-French interpretation during the witness hearing, finding it unnecessary since English is one of the two procedural languages of the Paris Local Division and the common working language of the court.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited, proprietor of European patent EP 2 152 073 B1 relating to herbicide compositions, sought provisional measures against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited in connection with their herbicide product 'Kagura'. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed issues including the burden of pleading and proof for composition claims, the risk of first infringement based on distribution outside Contracting States combined with advertising within them, and the requirement for a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause. The court also addressed procedural matters including the limitation of validity arguments to the best three in summary proceedings and the applicable safe harbour period for temporal urgency.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, and Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by Kinexon companies and UEFA for security for costs in appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. The court ruled that R.158 RoP and R.222.2 RoP are applicable to the Court of Appeal, and ordered Ballinno to provide security of €25,000 within two weeks, finding that Ballinno's financial situation raised legitimate concerns about the recoverability of any cost order.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent EP 1 612 910 B1, which relates to a power control system for electronic circuits, alleging that Tesla's Model Y vehicles using AMD Ryzen processors infringed the patent. Tesla filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially revoked the patent in its main request but maintained it in a modified auxiliary request form, finding partial infringement and allocating costs 85% to Avago and 15% to Tesla.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holdings ApS
The provided judgment text contains only digital signature blocks and does not include any substantive content regarding the facts, dispute, arguments, or outcome of the case. No factual details can be extracted from the input.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH and Others v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. (Language of Proceedings Order)
Seven defendants in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Düsseldorf applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP3065184 was granted. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., objected. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that the application was admissible despite being lodged in English, and that the balance of interests favored the defendants since both parties are international companies with significant internal resources, making the defendants' position decisive.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This order concerns Ericsson's application to amend its claims in preliminary injunction proceedings against ASUSTek, Arvato Netherlands, and Digital River Ireland regarding European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1. The amendment unconditionally limited the original claims, particularly recharacterizing Defendant Arvato from a direct infringer under Article 25(a) UPCA to an intermediary under Article 62(1) UPCA. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Lisbon Local Division) granted the amendment under Rule 263.3 RoP, as the defendants did not oppose the changes and the amendments narrowed the scope of the original claims.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This is an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Munich Section) concerning a request by Mathys & Squire LLP under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from a concluded revocation action (ACT_464985/2023) between Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine (Claimant) and Healios K.K, Riken, and Osaka University (Defendants) regarding EP3056563. The main proceedings had been disposed of by way of settlement. The Court granted access to the written pleadings and evidence, subject to redaction of personal data and confidentiality of certain commercially sensitive information relating to the Claimant's product pipeline timeline, and granted leave to appeal.
Applicant v.Registrar of the Unified Patent Court (UPC_CoA_364/2024, UPC_CoA_393/2024)
A German patent attorney applied for registration in the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court (UPC). The Registrar rejected the application because the applicant failed to demonstrate completion of one of the specifically listed courses or certificates under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules. The President of the Court of Appeal upheld the rejection, finding that the applicant's 'Münchner Jahr' training from 1997-1998, while potentially covering equivalent content, did not constitute proof of successful completion of the specifically required 'Recht für Patentanwältinnen und Patentanwälte' course at Fernuniversität Hagen or the 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau.'
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, addressing the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the Defendants' (Magna entities) request to classify certain information contained in their Objection and related exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited group of the Applicant's (Valeo Electrification) representatives. The court rejected Valeo's objection that the same information had already been publicly disclosed in Stuttgart Regional Court proceedings in 2023, finding that the information in question was different.
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.