European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 46 of 54 · 1,592 total
Mathys & Squire LLP v.BITZER Electronics A/S; Carrier Corporation
In a decision concerning public access to court files, the UPC granted an application by Mathys & Squire LLP. The applicant sought access to all written pleadings and evidence in a patent validity case (EP 3 414 708). The Court determined that the general interest of the public in transparency superseded any potential confidentiality concerns under Article 45 UPCA, particularly as the proceedings were concluding. This ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to open justice while balancing party interests.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Amgen Inc.'s infringement suit against Sanofi and Regeneron regarding EP3666797 (covering Praluent/Alirocumab) was stayed by the UPC Local Division Munich. This stay followed a prior Central Division decision that had revoked the patent in its entirety, which is now subject to appeal. The parties agreed to halt the infringement proceedings until the validity challenge reaches a final resolution.
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 non-EU jurisdictions, specifically China and Hong Kong. NEC Corporation sought to use alternative service methods (email or public notice) for its TCL counterparts, but the Court rejected this request. The ruling reinforces that procedural formalities regarding international service cannot be bypassed simply due to the claimant's desire for a swift remedy, emphasizing adherence to both UPC rules and relevant national laws.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a request for public access to court documents following the conclusion of provisional measures proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of the applicant, Powell Gilbert LLP, granting access to pleadings and evidence. The ruling established that after a final decision is rendered, the general interest of the public in scrutinizing judicial decisions outweighs the parties' concerns regarding procedural integrity, even if an appeal is pending.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.VusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA)
This UPC Appeals Board decision clarifies the procedural rules governing cost determination in complex litigation. The court ruled that even when a party seeks to recover costs related to the appeals process itself, the application must ultimately be filed with and decided by the Court of First Instance. This ruling reinforces the structured nature of the UPC's procedure, ensuring that all final cost determinations follow the established framework (R. 150 ff. VerfO). Practitioners should note this when planning their costs recovery strategy in multi-stage UPC proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed requests concerning auxiliary claims and deadlines in a provisional measures appeal involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The court ultimately rejected Abbott's attempts to disregard the Respondents' request for an extension of time. This decision highlights the court's careful balancing act between parties' interests, particularly when new procedural requests are introduced late in proceedings.
Simulity Labs Limited v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the confidentiality of evidence (Exhibit 4) in an ongoing infringement action involving ARM and ICPillar. The Court rejected ICPillar's request to keep the exhibit confidential, prioritizing transparency for the main proceedings. Crucially, the court balanced this by granting both parties opportunities to amend their respective statements based on the newly available information, thereby addressing concerns about equality of arms.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Vivisol B BV
This UPC appeal addressed a procedural request by Vivisol B BV seeking to suspend proceedings and extend deadlines related to an infringement action brought by OrthoApnea S.L. The Court of Appeal ultimately rejected the suspension request, ruling that parties must adhere to standard litigation procedures regardless of potential future appellate outcomes. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural steps in UPC cases must proceed without undue delay, even when substantive issues are under appeal.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In this procedural order concerning an application for provisional measures, the UPC granted Valeo Electrification leave to change its claim regarding EP 3 320 602 B1. The Applicant sought to unconditionally limit a previously 'alternatively' claimed feature in its injunction request. The Court ruled that R. 263 RoP applies fully to PI proceedings and found that this specific limitation was favorable to the Defendants as it narrowed the scope of the potential preliminary injunctions, thus allowing the amendment.
Simulity Labs Limited v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application concerning the confidentiality of evidence (Exhibit 4) in an ongoing infringement action involving ARM and ICPillar. The court rejected ICPillar's request to keep the information confidential, deeming the justification insufficient. Consequently, the unredacted version of the exhibit was made available to the Respondents, allowing them time to amend their pleadings.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving drug infusion systems. The Court ruled that despite one defendant being based in Germany, the interests and positions of the defendants collectively justified switching the language to English, which was the patent's granting language. This ruling reinforces the principle that when balancing linguistic interests, the position of the defendants holds decisive weight.
CANÈ S.p.A. v.FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
In a case concerning infringement of EP3181168, CANÈ S.p.A. and FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE reached an amicable settlement before the UPC Paris Local Division. The court formally homologated this transaction, bringing an end to the litigation. A key aspect of the decision was the ruling on procedural costs, where the claimant successfully claimed a 60% reimbursement based on the timing of the agreement.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In a procedural ruling, NanoString Technologies Europe Limited successfully opposed President and Fellows of Harvard College's attempt to introduce late-stage written submissions and expert reports in a revocation action concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court upheld the principle of 'front-loaded character' inherent in UPC proceedings. This decision reinforces the requirement for parties to present their full case early, preventing procedural delays and ensuring efficient judicial process.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC rejected a request by Xiaomi entities to extend their deadline for filing a statement of defense in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC regarding a patented chip technology. The court emphasized that the existing time limits are robust enough to handle complex international technical coordination and did not accept arguments related to supplier confidentiality or lack of internal technical insight as sufficient grounds for an exception. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining strict procedural timelines while offering specific mechanisms, such as R. 262A RoP, for handling confidential information.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addresses how defendants can submit large video recordings as evidence in an ongoing infringement action. The court clarified that although USB sticks are permitted for exceeding CMS size limits, a specific two-step procedure involving a new R. 9 application and a 'physical exhibit description' document must be followed to ensure proper registration with the Court's system. This ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural rules when introducing physical evidence in UPC proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This UPC decision addressed procedural motions within an infringement case involving EP3404726. The claimant, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., sought to proceed against Laser Components SAS, while Photon Wave Co.,Ltd. intervened and requested a stay of the proceedings pending a parallel revocation action in the Central Division. The Court rejected the request for a stay, emphasizing procedural efficiency and noting that the infringement case was further along than the revocation case. However, the Court granted the request to allocate a technical judge to the panel.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This UPC decision addresses procedural applications in two revocation actions concerning patents EP3056563 and EP3056564. Both the Claimant, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and the Defendants confirmed that they had reached a settlement. The Court accepted their request to dispose of the cases under Rule 360 RoP, confirming that settlement allows for case disposal without mandatory judicial confirmation. The ruling reinforces the principle of party disposition in UPC proceedings, allowing parties flexibility in concluding actions outside formal judgment. Furthermore, the court granted the Claimant a reimbursement of court fees, underscoring the procedural encouragement for early settlements.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural issues surrounding evidence preservation and inspection under Article 60 UPCA. The court established that the disclosure of preserved evidence is not automatic; it requires balancing the applicant's need for information against the respondent's right to protect confidential trade secrets. Crucially, the ruling clarified the timing mechanism for revocation of measures, linking the deadline to when the evidence is actually disclosed or access is denied. This decision provides vital guidance on managing confidentiality in preliminary UPC proceedings.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding sensitive documents submitted during an infringement action. The UPC ruled that certain redacted commercial data was protected as confidential information, granting access only to specific parties of the respondent's team. Conversely, a settlement agreement document was excluded from evidence entirely. This decision highlights the court's nuanced approach to balancing trade secret protection with procedural fairness in complex patent litigation.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order within an infringement action, Oerlikon Textile sought protection for confidential information contained in documents submitted during litigation. The UPC Court addressed two key documents: a settlement agreement (Doc n. 37) and commercial data (Doc n. 38). The court ultimately excluded the highly sensitive settlement agreement from evidence while granting Himson Engineering limited, controlled access to the redacted commercial data under strict confidentiality rules.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a challenge by AYLO PREMIUM LTD against a confidentiality order established under UPC Rules of Procedure (R. 262A VerfO). The dispute centered on whether three individuals named by the claimants should be excluded from accessing confidential information related to the patent infringement case. The court upheld the original order, finding that the respondent did not provide sufficient justification to restrict access, thereby reinforcing the principle of unrestricted access to the core dispute material.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finland Oy, HP Italy S.r.l., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD
This UPC decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the protection of confidential information (Rule 262A) within an infringement case involving Dolby International AB and various HP entities. The core issue was defining the scope of access for Access Advance LLC, which had joined as a third-party intervenor in the patent pool dispute. The court granted the status of intervenor but imposed strict limitations on who could view the unredacted confidential documents.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a significant UPC decision, the Central Division rejected revocation actions against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning its prosthetic heart valve patent (EP '825). The claimants argued for invalidity based on lack of novelty and inventive step. However, the Court maintained the patent's validity after accepting an amendment submitted by the defendant, underscoring the importance of procedural compliance in UPC litigation.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a complex revocation action, the UPC Central Division rejected Meril Italy Srl's attempt to invalidate EP 3 646 825. The patent relates to an advanced prosthetic heart valve with a unique hexagonal cell frame design. Despite multiple procedural maneuvers and consolidation of related counterclaims, the Court upheld the patent's validity after incorporating amendments. This case underscores the UPC's jurisdiction over complex medical device patents and its strict approach to maintaining patent rights unless clear invalidity grounds are established.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a significant decision concerning medical device patents, the UPC Central Division rejected revocation actions against EP '825. The patent relates to an advanced prosthetic heart valve with a unique hexagonal cell frame structure designed to prevent leakage. Although Meril Italy Srl initiated the action based on novelty and inventive step arguments, the Court ultimately maintained the patent's validity after considering amendments submitted by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. This case highlights how procedural conduct, specifically the submission of limitations during proceedings, can determine the outcome of a revocation suit.
Unnamed individual residing in Belgium v.OrthoApnea S.L.
This UPC Local Division Brussels order addressed a procedural challenge brought by OrthoApnea S.L. against an earlier interim decision concerning claim amendments and deadlines in an infringement action related to EP 2 331 036. The court rejected the request for partial review, upholding the Judge-Rapporteur's initial ruling that allowed certain procedural adjustments while maintaining strict control over the case timeline. This highlights the UPC's rigorous approach to managing complex litigation and limiting opportunities for extensive procedural delays.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
In a significant UPC decision, the Central Division revoked European Patent 3 666 797 B1, which covers PCSK9 inhibitors used for cholesterol reduction. The case involved Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Amgen Inc., both major players in the biotech drug market. While the patent was successfully challenged and revoked, the court also ruled on costs, awarding a substantial sum to the successful Claimant (Regeneron). This ruling underscores the high stakes of UPC revocation actions in the competitive pharmaceutical landscape.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
In a significant decision, the UPC Central Division revoked European Patent EP 3 666 797 B1, which covers PCSK9 inhibitors used in cholesterol-lowering treatments. The case involved Sanofi-Aventis and Amgen, two major players in the biotech drug market. The revocation was based on patentability grounds, specifically concerning inventive step and claim interpretation. This ruling underscores the rigorous standards applied by the UPC when assessing complex biotechnological inventions.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This Düsseldorf Local Court decision addressed a request from Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. for court-provided simultaneous interpretation during oral proceedings, despite having English proficiency. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that since English was an available procedural language and the claimant deliberately chose German, they must bear the costs of their own interpreter. This ruling reinforces the principle that parties must utilize available procedural options when seeking to participate in hearings.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
In a case concerning patent infringement related to extrusion technology, KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH successfully withdrew its lawsuit against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG after reaching an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Local Division accepted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings. Crucially, the court ruled that because the litigation was not yet fully concluded—due to pending issues like expert reports and parallel EPO appeal decisions—the claimant was entitled to a partial refund of their court fees.
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.