European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 46 of 67 · 2,007 total
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
Motorola Mobility LLC filed a patent infringement action against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 3 780 758. 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, holding that Motorola failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) of the Rules of Procedure.
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. before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 402 415 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the claimant 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 claimant.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
The defendant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court sought security for costs of EUR 400,000, arguing that the Israeli claimant's foreign domicile created enforcement risks and that the claimant initiated proceedings to cause material harm. The claimant, part of the PepsiCo group, opposed the request, citing its financial strength and the applicability of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure. The court dismissed the request, holding that the mere location of the claimant's registered office in Israel and unsubstantiated doubts about compliance with a future cost decision did not justify ordering security for costs.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH for the release of a EUR 500,000 security deposit it had lodged with the Unified Patent Court in connection with ex parte interim measures granted against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 B1. After initially depositing the security to enable prompt enforcement, Ortovox subsequently obtained and provided a bank guarantee and sought release of the deposited amount. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the Registrar to release the deposited security, subject to the expiry of the respondents' right to seek review.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 926 698 B1. The claimant sought review of the judge-rapporteur's decision to postpone ruling on the admission of four additional auxiliary requests filed under Rule 30.2 RoP. The court upheld the procedural order, holding that Rule 30.2 RoP leaves the timing of the admission decision to the court's discretion, and that the two-month response period under Rule 32.1 RoP does not automatically apply to later amendment applications under Rule 30.2 RoP.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns EP 3 594 009 B1, where FUJIFILM (Claimant) sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to change its conditional application to amend the patent, originally limited to the German designation, to extend to all designations. The Court rejected the application under Rule 263 RoP but reclassified the amended set of requests as a subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP and allowed it, while rejecting the Defendants' alternative request for an extension of time limits.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Lama France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action brought by Hewlett-Packard Development Company against Lama France based on European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The court ruled on Hewlett-Packard's request under Rule 191 RoP for an order compelling Lama France to disclose information about third parties involved in the production and distribution of the allegedly infringing products. The court found the request admissible and partially granted it in more limited terms than requested, ordering disclosure of certain invoices related to parallel importation from outside the EU, subject to confidentiality measures and without a penalty.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi H.K. Limited regarding European Patent EP 2 568 724 before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The court addressed the issue of service of process when the Hague Service Convention receiving authority in Hong Kong refused service because the plaintiff referred to the defendant's location as 'Hong Kong' rather than the politically preferred 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.' The court ruled that all formal service methods under Rules 270-274 had been exhausted and ordered alternative service under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure, along with publication of the order on the court's homepage.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action against Xiaomi H.K. Limited before the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 2 207 270. After all formal service attempts under Rules 270-274 of the Rules of Procedure and the Hague Service Convention failed—because the Hong Kong receiving authority refused service on political grounds regarding the designation of Hong Kong—the court ordered alternative service under Rule 275.2 RoP, recognizing the steps already taken as valid service and ordering publication of the order on the court's homepage.
Amycel LLC v.[Defendant]
Amycel LLC, owner of European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 directed to a hybrid Agaricus bisporus mushroom strain BR06 (sold as 'Heirloom'), sought provisional measures against a Polish mushroom farmer selling a competing brown mushroom strain called 'Cayene'. The Local Division The Hague found that mushroom strains are not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC, that the patent was valid and infringed, and granted the requested provisional measures including an injunction, delivery-up order, customer disclosure, and penalty payments, subject to Amycel providing EUR 200,000 in security.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited, Dexcom France SAS
This procedural order concerns an application by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court, seeking an order requiring Dexcom entities to disclose the full distribution chain of the allegedly infringing Dexcom G6 and G7 Systems across all Relevant Contracting Member States. The Paris Local Division dismissed the application, finding it admissible in principle but not sufficiently justified or proportionate, given that Abbott had deliberately chosen to sue only one of many distributors. The Court held that Abbott could request more targeted information on the role of each defendant after a decision on the merits.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on July 31, 2024, concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315, holding that all formal service attempts on Xiaomi H.K. Limited had been exhausted after the Hong Kong receiving authority refused to serve the documents on political grounds related to the designation of the defendant's address. The court ordered alternative service under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure, recognizing the steps already taken as valid service, and directed publication of the order on the court's homepage.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
The Local Chamber Vienna of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order regarding an application for intervention by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717 B1. The court admitted Chainzone's intervention on the defendant's side, subject to the condition that Chainzone deposit security for costs of EUR 134,000 by August 20, 2024, due to the risk of unenforceability of a cost decision in China.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities alleging that their FreeStyle Libre 2 glucose monitoring system infringed EP 3 797 685 B1, which relates to communication systems between a sensor electronics unit and a display device in an analyte monitoring system. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, and the Munich Local Division found the patent invalid for lacking an inventive step over the prior art (Berman) when supplemented with common general knowledge. The patent was revoked in its entirety, auxiliary requests were dismissed, and all infringement claims were dismissed with costs borne by the claimant.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 490 258 B1, an HEVC-essential patent. Access Advance LLC, which had intervened on the plaintiff's side to manage the patent pool containing Dolby's HEVC-essential portfolio, applied for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP regarding license agreements it submitted. The court granted the application, holding that an intervener is treated as a party under R. 315.4 RoP and may therefore request confidential treatment of information in its submissions.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request for expedition of its appeal against an order of the Hamburg Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning EP 3167888. The court held that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time limit for the respondent's statement of response, and that Alexion's arguments about seeking patent protection quickly and the appeal involving a purely legal issue were insufficient.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company & Others
Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision of the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court that dismissed its application for provisional measures against multiple Amgen entities concerning EP 3167888. Alongside its appeal, Alexion requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under Rule 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time period for lodging the statement of response.
BEGO Medical GmbH v.CEAD USA B.V., CEAD B.V.
This order concerns a request by the defendant BEGO Medical GmbH to restrict access to its attorney cost estimates (Annexes ES8 and ES9) filed in a nullity action concerning EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court. The court rejected the request to restrict access from the opposing parties (CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V.) under Rule 262A, holding that the claimants needed full access to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of costs under Article 69 UPCA. However, the court granted the request to restrict public access under Rule 262.2, finding that the public's interest in individually negotiated attorney fees generally yields to the party's interest in confidentiality.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three Asian TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal held that service by email to a person not authorized to accept service, and public service by written notice displayed at the court's premises, were not permissible at this stage of the proceedings. The appeal was rejected, with the Court confirming that Hague Convention service attempts should normally be made before alternative methods of service can be employed.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.
Amgen Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Sanofi and Regeneron entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 3 666 797 and their drug Praluent (Alirocumab). After the Central Division revoked the patent in its entirety on 16 July 2024, both parties agreed to stay the infringement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation decision.
Mathys & Squire LLP (Application under Rule 262(1)(b) RoP in proceedings UPC_CFI_263/2023) v.Ex Parte
An intellectual property firm, Mathys & Squire LLP, applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_263/2023) concerning European patent EP 3 414 708, involving BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation as parties. The respondents did not object to the application. The judge-rapporteur granted the application, finding that the proceedings had concluded and that no substantial interests under Article 45 UPCA outweighed the applicant's interest in accessing the documents.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
BITZER Electronics A/S brought a revocation action against Carrier Corporation seeking to invalidate claim 1 of European patent EP 3 414 708 B1, which relates to an apparatus for cold chain monitoring of perishable goods. The claimant alleged added subject matter, insufficient disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court rejected the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended under auxiliary request II, while splitting costs 60% to the claimant and 40% to the defendant.
Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Public Access to the Register) v.Ex Parte
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1 RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded proceedings (UPC_CFI_131/2024) concerning EP3831283, a patent owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The main proceeding parties (Abbott, Sibio Technology Limited, and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) opposed the application, arguing that an appeal was pending and that Powell Gilbert lacked a sufficiently specific interest. The Local Division The Hague granted the application, applying the criteria from the Court of Appeal's decision in Ocado v AutoStore, and also granted leave to appeal.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural scheduling order from the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3669828. The court addressed the defendants' request to postpone the oral hearing due to the unavailability of their representative, Mr. Würtenberger, who was expecting a child and planning parental leave. Balancing the claimant's right to efficient proceedings within one year against the defendants' right to representation of their choice, the court set the oral hearing for a date in 2025 and the interim conference for a date in 2024.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that service by email to a person not authorised to accept service, or by public notice at the Local Division's premises, was not permissible at this stage, and that Hague Convention service methods should normally be attempted first before alternative methods could be employed.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd & Others v.VusionGroup SA
This case concerns a procedural question before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding where a cost determination application must be filed when it follows an order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that cost determination applications must be filed at the Court of First Instance, even when they relate exclusively or partially to costs of appeal proceedings, and referred Hanshow's application to the Rapporteur of the Court of First Instance.
Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Public Access to the Register) v.Ex Parte
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from provisional measures proceedings (UPC_CFI_130/2024) concerning patent EP2713879, involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. as applicant and Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. as defendants. Both Abbott and Sibio c.s. opposed the request, arguing that the proceedings were still ongoing due to a pending appeal and that Powell Gilbert lacked a sufficiently specific legitimate interest. The Local Division The Hague applied the criteria from Ocado v AutoStore and granted access, holding that the general public interest in understanding and scrutinizing court decisions outweighs the integrity of proceedings once first instance proceedings have ended, even where an appeal is pending.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against the denial of its preliminary injunction application by the UPC Local Division The Hague regarding patent EP 3 831 283. Abbott had submitted four auxiliary requests in its appeal, which the Respondents sought to have disregarded. The Court of Appeal decided to defer ruling on the allowability of the auxiliary requests to the oral hearing and granted the Respondents an extension of deadline for their Statement of response, ultimately rejecting Abbott's requests in its R.9 RoP application.
CANÈ S.p.A. v.France Développement Électronique
CANÈ S.p.A., an Italian company and proprietor of European patent EP3181168, brought a patent infringement action against France Développement Électronique (FDE) before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement through the delivery and offering of 'So-Easy' devices in France, Germany, and Italy. FDE did not contest the validity of the patent or the infringement but undertook to cease infringing activities. The parties reached a settlement agreement on June 20, 2024, which the court homologated, ordering reimbursement of €9,100 in procedural fees to CANÈ and withdrawal of certain exhibits from the proceedings.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Others v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (Language of Proceedings Order)
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH filed an infringement action against Tandem Diabetes Care entities and VitalAire GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg based on European Patent EP 2196231. The defendants requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that when balancing of interests is equal between international parties, the position of the defendant is the decisive factor.
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.