European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 45 of 54 · 1,592 total
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning confidentiality, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed access rights in the ongoing infringement action between 10x Genomics and Curio Bioscience. The court clarified that while prior summary proceedings orders remain relevant, specific restrictions must be set for the main case to balance the parties' needs. Access to confidential documents was strictly limited to named counsel and their actively involved teams, emphasizing the personal liability of the primary representatives.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. initiated an infringement lawsuit against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning the patent EP 2 402 415 B1. However, before a full hearing could take place, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently agreed to withdraw the claim. The Düsseldorf Local Division formally accepted this withdrawal, terminating the case.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
In this UPC case, Motorola Mobility LLC sought leave to amend its infringement claim against Ericsson, specifically to include requests for injunctive relief and recall of infringing products. The court ultimately rejected this application, ruling that the Claimant had not acted with sufficient diligence. The decision emphasizes strict procedural adherence in SEP litigation within the UPC, particularly regarding when remedies like injunctions can be introduced.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC appellate case involved an application by 10x Genomics to reopen proceedings following a ruling that overturned an initial injunction against NanoString Technologies. 10x argued that the original judgment violated fundamental procedural rights, specifically regarding the court's reliance on its own technical expertise rather than party-submitted evidence. The Appellate Court firmly rejected this claim, stating that judicial assessment of facts and evidence is not subject to review in a reopening application, thereby upholding the previous decisions.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
In this UPC case concerning a 5G SEP patent (EP3342086), Motorola Mobility LLC sought leave to amend its infringement claim to include requests for injunctive relief and product recall against Ericsson. The Court of First Instance rejected the application, ruling that the Claimant had not acted with sufficient diligence. The court noted that similar remedies could have been requested earlier, citing prior actions in the UK, thereby limiting the ability of SEP holders to unilaterally delay enforcement while claiming FRAND obligations.
Qufora A/S v.Manfred Sauer GmbH and Mr. Manfred Sauer
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendants (Manfred Sauer GmbH and Mr. Manfred Sauer) to waive translation requirements for several German-language documents in an infringement case against Qufora A/S. The Court ultimately dismissed the waiver request, emphasizing that while both parties had German-speaking representation, the panel itself lacked sufficient language skills regarding the original materials. Crucially, because the Applicants had already provided machine translations as a fallback measure, the procedural application was dismissed without further action.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This procedural order addresses a request for an extension by the defendant, Orbisk B.V., in an infringement action brought by Winnow Solutions Limited concerning patent EP3198245. The Court of First Instance granted the requested extension, allowing Orbisk until September 6, 2024, to respond to the R190 evidence production request. This decision underscores the court's flexibility in managing procedural timelines while maintaining the necessity for timely handling of critical discovery requests.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o
In this preliminary procedural order, the UPC Court addressed an issue of service of process in a patent infringement case brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities. The core dispute revolved around proving that Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.) had properly received the claim filed under EP 3 057 321. The court ultimately accepted the defendant's own statement as valid proof of service, thereby clearing a procedural hurdle and allowing the main infringement action to proceed.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding service of process on non-EU defendants, specifically those based in China and Hong Kong. Panasonic challenged the court's requirement for prior Hague Convention service attempts before allowing service via an EU group company (Xiaomi DE). The Board upheld the lower court's stance, emphasizing that corporate structure alone does not satisfy the requirements for valid cross-border service to non-EU jurisdictions. This ruling reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC cases involving international defendants, particularly when attempting to leverage intra-group relationships for jurisdictional purposes.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict rules governing service of process for defendants located outside the EU, specifically in China and Taiwan. The court ruled that a group company within an EU Member State cannot substitute for the statutory seat or principal place of business of its foreign affiliate. This ruling emphasizes that parties must follow established international procedures, such as the Hague Convention, when serving claims on non-EU entities.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In a costs-related proceeding, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf dismissed Aarke AB's request for security of costs against SodaStream Industries Ltd. The Court emphasized that ordering such security requires concrete evidence demonstrating either financial instability or a high risk that an UPC judgment would be unenforceable. The defendant failed to substantiate its claims regarding the claimant's willingness to comply with cost decisions, especially given the claimant's affiliation with the financially strong PepsiCo group.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH; expert klein GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court addressed a claimant's request to introduce further amendments to an existing European patent (EP 3 926 698 B1). The court rejected the motion, establishing a strict interpretation of the UPC Rules of Procedure. The decision clarifies that late-stage amendment requests do not activate the standard two-month response window for defendants, thereby preventing procedural stagnation and ensuring the timely conduct of litigation.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG / Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In this provisional measures case, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought the release of a 500,000 EUR cash deposit previously provided to secure an ex-parte injunction. The claimant successfully argued that she had replaced the cash deposit with a bank guarantee, demonstrating a legitimate interest in exchanging the security due to practical constraints. The court ruled in favor of Ortovox, ordering the release of the funds, thereby establishing clear guidelines on the flexibility of security requirements within UPC proceedings.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Hewlett-Packard's request for information disclosure against Lama France. HP sought details on third parties and import invoices related to alleged infringing cartridges. The court found that such requests are admissible throughout the litigation process if necessary for instruction. This decision allows HP to gather crucial evidence regarding the supply chain without immediately establishing infringement, setting a precedent for discovery-like procedures in UPC cases.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the scope and admissibility of an application to amend European patent EP 3 594 009 B1. Fujifilm sought to expand the territorial scope of its amendment, arguing consistency with its damages claims. The Court rejected this initial request (R. 263 RoP) because the limitation lacked objective justification required for uniform decision-making under Art. 34 UPCA. However, it subsequently allowed the amended application under R. 30.2 RoP, allowing the patent to be formally amended.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag et al.
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division in Munich revoked EP 3 797 685 B1 during an infringement action brought by DexCom against Abbott. The patent covered communication systems for analyte monitoring devices, specifically glucose monitors like FreeStyle Libre 2. Because the patent was found to be invalid and subsequently revoked, the Court dismissed all claims of infringement. This case underscores the critical importance of concurrent revocation proceedings in UPC litigation.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC decision concerns an application for third-party intervention (Streithilfe) in a patent infringement case. The claimant sued the respondent over EP 2 643 717, which covers specialized optics for outdoor display boards used in LED traffic signs. A Chinese manufacturer, Chainzone Technology, sought to join the proceedings as a third party because its products were allegedly infringing. The court admitted the intervention but conditioned it on the deposit of EUR 134,000 to cover potential legal costs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a complex procedural issue regarding service of process in international UPC cases. The claimant (Panasonic) faced repeated failures when attempting to serve documents on the respondent (Xiaomi HK Limited) via the Hague Service Convention due to political objections by the receiving authority. The court ultimately ruled that since all formal attempts were exhausted and further efforts were futile, the prior steps constituted valid service under Rule 275.2 VerfO. This ruling provides a crucial procedural pathway for claimants facing diplomatic or administrative hurdles in cross-border litigation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
This procedural order addressed Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s request for the UPC to compel Dexcom entities to disclose the entire distribution chain of their G6 and G7 diabetes monitoring systems. The Court ruled that while such information can be requested during proceedings, Abbott's specific demand was disproportionate. The judge found that because Abbott had targeted only certain distributors, requesting the full global supply chain was not reasonably necessary for advancing its case.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (unnamed)
Amycel LLC successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC CFI regarding its patent on a hybrid mushroom strain (BR06). The court granted an interim injunction against the unnamed defendant to prevent infringement in key territories, provided Amycel deposited EUR 200,000.00 as security. This decision reinforces the enforceability of plant/microorganism patents within the UPC framework and provides immediate relief for biotech innovators.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This decision from the Local Division Mannheim addresses a critical procedural hurdle: service of process. The claimant, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, faced repeated failures in serving Xiaomi H.K. Limited due to objections from foreign receiving authorities regarding the naming conventions on the patent documents. The court ultimately ruled that since all formal attempts were exhausted and deemed futile, the prior efforts constituted valid legal notice. This sets a precedent for how UPC proceedings can proceed when external political or administrative barriers prevent traditional service.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a critical procedural hurdle: service of process. The claimant, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, faced repeated failures in serving its infringement claim against Xiaomi H.K. Limited due to objections from foreign receiving authorities regarding the defendant's designation. The court ultimately ruled that since all formal and alternative delivery methods had been exhausted without success, the steps already taken were sufficient to constitute valid service under UPC rules. This ruling provides significant clarity on how courts can overcome jurisdictional barriers caused by external political or administrative refusals during international litigation.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addressed Alexion Pharmaceuticals' appeal against a prior decision concerning provisional measures. The core issue was Alexion's request for an expedited hearing, arguing that the matter was purely legal and required swift resolution. The Court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing the need to balance due process with the respondent's interests, thereby maintaining standard procedural timelines.
CEAD B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning the confidentiality of litigation costs in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_367/2023). The parties sought to restrict access to detailed cost breakdowns, which included individually negotiated attorney fees. The Court ultimately granted public confidentiality for these documents, finding that the private interest in protecting fee arrangements outweighed the general public's need for such granular financial detail. This ruling reinforces the protection of sensitive commercial information within UPC proceedings.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company; Amgen N.V.; Amgen GmbH; Amgen AB; Amgen S.A.S.; Amgen s.r.l.; Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda.; Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding its application for provisional measures against Amgen entities. The appeal sought an expedited hearing process under UPC Rules of Procedure. However, the Court of Appeal ultimately rejected the request for expedition, finding that Alexion's arguments were insufficient to outweigh the respondents' interests in maintaining standard procedural timelines. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain accelerated proceedings within the Unified Patent Court framework.
Dolby International AB v.HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Finland Oy, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP Austria GmbH, HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc Danmark ApS, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Italy S.r.l., HP France SAS, HP International SARL, HP PPS Sverige AB, HP Belgium SPRL, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV
In a case concerning the infringement of an HEVC essential patent, Dolby International AB sought protection for its confidential information via an assisting party (Access Advance LLC). The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order granting this request. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms within the UPC that allow parties and assisting parties to protect trade secrets during litigation, ensuring sensitive business data remains restricted to authorized personnel.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of serving legal documents on defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong during infringement proceedings. NEC Corporation sought alternative service methods, such as email or public notice, but the Court rejected these requests. The ruling reinforces that while the UPC has its own procedural rules, they must operate within the framework of international conventions (like the Hague Convention) and respect the national laws of the contracting states. This decision serves as a critical reminder to practitioners about the strict requirements for cross-border service in the UPC.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This UPC decision addresses procedural scheduling in an infringement case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril. The court faced significant logistical challenges due to the unavailability of key defense counsel, who were tied up with other major litigation matters. After balancing efficiency goals against the right to fair representation, the Court set the interim conference for 2024 and scheduled the main oral hearing for 2025.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request by Powell Gilbert LLP for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in an ongoing UPC case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court ruled that once a decision has been rendered, the general interest of the public in scrutinizing court proceedings outweighs the parties' concern over maintaining procedural integrity, even if an appeal is pending. This reinforces the principle that transparency prevails after a judgment, setting a clear precedent for post-decision document access requests.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Central Division rejected a revocation action against EP 3 414 708. The case centered on complex arguments regarding the admissibility of patent amendments to claims that were not directly challenged in the initial revocation suit. By maintaining the patent in its amended form, the court provided clarity on how patentees can utilize procedural mechanisms like auxiliary requests during litigation, even when only a subset of claims is attacked.
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.