European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 45 of 67 · 2,007 total
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 263 098. The Apple entities appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellants' further submission filed on August 15, 2024, because the Rule 36 application seeking leave to file additional pleadings was submitted after the interim proceedings had already been closed on August 13, 2024.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Microsoft's request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. Microsoft had sought review of a judge-rapporteur's order dated 2 July 2024 that rejected Microsoft's application under Rule 361 RoP to declare Suinno's patent infringement action manifestly inadmissible. The Court held that the request was inadmissible because the impugned order was a case management order issued by the judge-rapporteur, which can only be appealed if first reviewed by a panel under Rule 333.1 RoP.
Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Billing Limited, Aylo Freesites Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This case concerns a discretionary review under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The Aylo companies sought leave to appeal a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim that granted three US-based in-house counsels of Dish and Sling access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the abstract risk of misuse by in-house counsels is insufficient to deny access absent concrete circumstances justifying such suspicion.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Lama France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The defendant LAMA France sought to exclude portions of the claimant HPDC's July 15, 2024 submission that addressed infringement issues, arguing these were outside the scope of the reply permitted under Rules 29(e) and 32.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The judge-rapporteur granted the request, ordering that HPDC's submission be limited to point 3 (validity) and that LAMA's corresponding August 16, 2024 submission be limited to points 3 and 4.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
Ballinno B.V. sought a stay of revocation proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067 B1 pending the outcome of its appeal against the denial of provisional measures by the UPC Local Division Hamburg. The Central Division (Paris Seat) rejected the request, holding that an appeal against the denial of provisional measures does not generally justify a stay of revocation proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP. The court also rejected Ballinno's request for compensation of legal costs.
Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Billing Limited, and Aylo Freesites Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C.
Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application filed by the Aylo companies under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The Aylo companies had applied for discretionary review of a decision of the Local Division Mannheim and sought leave to appeal, and after being heard under Rule 220.4 RoP, they filed a further application under Rule 9.1 RoP. The Standing Judge dismissed the application, holding that Rule 9.1 RoP does not grant parties an independent right to file applications on their own initiative, and that any further submissions beyond the application and response contemplated by Rule 220.4 RoP require admission by the Standing Judge.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others
This is a procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action regarding EP3769722. The Defendants (Meril entities and others) requested a stay of proceedings pending an EPO opposition decision, while the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) opposed the stay. The Court dismissed the request, holding that Rule 118.2(b) RoP applies only during oral procedure, a rapid EPO decision could not be expected, and the UPC could itself decide validity given the pending counterclaims for revocation.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited and Others v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the Defendants (Meril Life Sciences and related entities) for the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) to provide security for legal costs in an infringement action concerning EP3769722. The Defendants argued that security was warranted because the Claimant is based in the United States, outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order potentially difficult. The court dismissed the application, holding that the Claimant's location outside the EU and the lack of experience enforcing UPC orders in the US are not sufficient grounds for ordering security, and that the balance of interests favored the Claimant.
Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect under R.223 RoP in a patent dispute concerning EP 2 713 879. The appellants (Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) appealed a preliminary injunction order issued by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court of Appeal found the first instance order manifestly erroneous insofar as it extended to Ireland, since Ireland had signed but not ratified the UPCA and was therefore not a Contracting Member State.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed a procedural dispute in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. The defendants (ASUSTek, Arvato, and Digital River) sought an order requiring the applicant (Ericsson) to comply with Rule 13.1(h) of the Rules of Procedure and to produce copies of prior art, pleadings, statements of case, and expert reports from referenced proceedings. The Court dismissed the defendants' request, finding that Ericsson had complied with R. 13.1(h) RoP and that the rule requires only information, not annexes or evidence.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB
This is a procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action and counterclaims for revocation related to European Patent EP 2 628 464. The proceedings had been stayed pending the written decision of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (TBA), which subsequently rejected the appeal as inadmissible and remitted the case to the EPO Opposition Division with an order to maintain the patent in amended form. The court set a timetable for the resumption of proceedings, requiring the claimant to file an amended statement of claim within 14 days and the defendants to file an amended defence and counterclaim for revocation within 42 days.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP4108782. The defendant Vizgen sought production of five categories of documents under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which had been disclosed in parallel US proceedings but were restricted under a US Protective Order. The court granted only the request for production of the license agreement between Harvard and ReadCoor, Inc. dated September 9, 2019, and rejected the remaining four requests as either lacking specificity or relating to competition law matters outside the court's jurisdiction.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 057 321. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) (TCL entities) filed an amended application for protection of confidential information regarding their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, after reaching an agreement with the Claimant on the terms of a confidentiality club. The Court granted the application, classifying specified information and annexes as confidential and restricting access to named representatives and their teams.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 645 714. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) sought protection of confidential information in their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, and after the parties reached an understanding on the applicable confidentiality club, the court granted the amended application. The court classified specific information as confidential, restricted access to designated representatives and their teams, and imposed a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 for any culpable breach of the confidentiality obligations.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, and AUDI AG
Network System Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich concerning European patent EP 1 552 669 against four defendants. The Claimant withdrew the action against Defendants 1 and 2 (Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) pursuant to Rule 265 RoP following a settlement. The court permitted the partial withdrawal and closed the proceedings against those two defendants, with each party bearing its own costs.
In re Request by DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o. for Access to Case Files (SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH)
DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o., a competitor of the claimant SWARCO Futurit, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure to the pleadings and evidence in an ongoing patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717. The Local Chamber Vienna denied the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings and the protection of personal data outweighed DMV's asserted information interest, as DMV failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest justifying access.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerned a panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 863 637. The court upheld the replacement of an erroneously filed exhibit (Exhibit BP 6) and maintained the extended deadline of 19 July 2024 for filing the Statement of Defence, rejecting the Defendants' request for a further extension to 9 August 2024. The court also held that Ms. Emily Rohde, as part of the Claimant's legal team, was authorized to file the request for exhibit replacement on behalf of NEC Corporation.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning European Patent EP 3 339 920 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, confirmed the parties' cost agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A., GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS
Procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by AGFA NV against nine Gucci group entities concerning European Patent EP3388490. The defendants jointly sought to protect as trade secrets certain information contained in their Statement of Defence and Rejoinder relating to the Gucci group's internal organization, supply chain, and sales data. The Hamburg Local Division granted the application, classifying the identified information as confidential under R. 262A RoP and restricting its use outside the present proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited
Procedural order concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendants requested that certain internal information contained in their Rejoinder be treated as strictly confidential, and the Local Division Munich granted the request, restricting access to the Claimant's named representatives and three named employees, with provisions for confidentiality obligations and penalty payments for breaches.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH filed a revocation action against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Court of First Instance seeking revocation of European Patent No. EP 3065184. Before the Statement for Revocation had been served on the Defendant, the Claimant withdrew the claim and requested reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company & Ors.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a procedural question concerning the effective date of service of the Appellant's Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings related to EP 3167888. The Appellant had uploaded the Statement of grounds to the Respondents' representative's German special electronic lawyer's mailbox (beA) on 27 July 2024, while the Court notified the Respondents via the Case Management System (CMS) on 29 July 2024. The Court held that under Rule 278.1 and 2 RoP, written pleadings are served by the Registry through the electronic CMS, and prior inter-party communication via another electronic system such as beA does not constitute effective service. The Court ordered that service of the Statement of grounds of appeal was effected on 29 July 2024.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 697 391 B1. The Defendant sought a confidentiality order restricting access to unredacted versions of its statement of defence and confidential exhibits, while the Claimant sought to extend access to its legal representatives and three named employees. The Court granted access to the Claimant's named representatives and their teams, along with three employees, finding that the Defendant had not objected to the extension and had not provided reasons to limit access further.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against five defendants, including Chinese and Taiwanese entities, seeking to serve the Statement of claim on the Chinese Xiaomi companies via Xiaomi Germany and on MediaTek (Taiwan) via MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The Local Division dismissed the request, holding that service must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected Daedalus's appeal, confirming that group companies in Contracting Member States cannot automatically be treated as statutory seats, central administrations, or principal places of business of defendants domiciled in China or Taiwan, and that Hague Convention methods (for China) and diplomatic/consular channels (for Taiwan) must first be attempted.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, and TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The sole issue addressed in this order was whether proper service had been effected on Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.), which is domiciled in China. The Court held that service was validly completed on 11 May 2024, accepting the defendant's own statement as proof of service.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against several Xiaomi entities, including Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. (based in China), and Xiaomi H.K. Limited (based in Hong Kong). Panasonic sought to serve these Asian Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, a sister company within the same corporate group. The Court of Appeal dismissed Panasonic's appeal, holding that a defendant company in China or Hong Kong cannot be served through a group company in a contracting member state without further justification, and that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention must generally be made before alternative service methods can be employed.
Orbisk B.V. v.Winnow Solutions Limited
Procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning an infringement action over EP 3 198 245 B1. The judge-rapporteur granted Orbisk B.V. an extension until 6 September 2024 to file its reply to Winnow Solutions Limited's Rule 190 RoP request for evidence production, rejecting Orbisk's request to align the reply deadline with its Statement of Defence.
Manfred Sauer GmbH & Manfred Sauer v.Qufora A/S
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a request by the defendants (Applicants) to dispense with translation of German-language exhibits filed in patent infringement proceedings relating to European patent EP 2 911 727. The Court dismissed the request, holding that the panel as a whole lacked sufficient German language skills and that the number, scope, and nature of the eleven exhibits made it disproportionate to waive the translation requirement. The Applicants had already filed machine translations as an auxiliary measure, thereby complying with Rule 7(1) RoP.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
Motorola Mobility LLC filed a patent infringement action against Ericsson entities before the Local Division Munich regarding European Patent EP 3 342 086. Motorola subsequently applied for leave to amend its claims to add requests for injunctive relief, recall, permanent removal, and destruction of infringing embodiments. The Court rejected the application, finding that Motorola could have made the amendment earlier with reasonable diligence, as it had already sought similar injunctive relief in parallel UK proceedings in December 2023.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected as inadmissible an application by 10x Genomics and Harvard College for re-examination of proceedings (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens) under R.245 RoP. The application sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's earlier decision overturning a preliminary injunction in favor of 10x regarding EP 4108782. The court held that the phrase indicating assessment by a technically qualified court did not constitute use of personal judicial opinion as evidence, and that the cost order in the interim proceedings had a proper legal basis under R.242.1 RoP.
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.