European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 47 of 54 · 1,592 total
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG et al. v.Ona Patents SL
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Apple seeking to accelerate the appeal process and reduce the deadline for Ona's reply. The court ultimately denied the request, holding that while acceleration was possible, Apple failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to override Ona's right to a fair trial. This case underscores the judiciary's careful balancing act between party efficiency demands and fundamental procedural fairness within the UPC framework.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the claimant (KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH) successfully withdrew its action against the respondent (TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG). The court accepted the withdrawal because both parties had reached an out-of-court settlement and the respondent consented to the claim's termination. Crucially, the court ruled that since the oral proceedings were not yet finalized—due to pending issues like expert reports or EPO appeal outcomes—the claimant was entitled to a partial refund of 20% of the court fees.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This decision from the Lokalkammer Mannheim addresses a request for protective measures concerning confidential information, specifically patent licensing agreements between Panasonic and Xiaomi entities. The court partially granted the protection regime, establishing strict rules on who can access these sensitive documents. This ruling highlights the UPC's detailed procedural mechanisms for managing trade secrets during litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a procedural dispute regarding the submission of pleadings in an infringement case. The respondents sought extensions for their reply and rejoinder, citing redacted documents from the claimant's initial filing. However, the court rejected these requests, establishing a strict rule that placeholders via redactions are procedurally unacceptable. This ruling emphasizes the importance of full transparency and timely disclosure of all arguments to ensure a fair defense process in UPC litigation.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
In this UPC case concerning infringement of EP4074373, the Local Division decided to refer the revocation counterclaim and the claimant's request for patent amendment to the Central Division in Paris. This decision was based on procedural efficiency, as the core arguments against the patent were already being litigated in a prior central action initiated by one of the defendants. The court ruled that maintaining parallel proceedings would violate the principle of process economy.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division of Mannheim addressed Panasonic Holdings Corporation's request for confidentiality protection concerning sensitive information related to its patent licensing agreements with third parties. The court partially granted this request, establishing strict rules governing who can access and how the confidential documents may be used within the proceedings. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to protecting commercially sensitive data during litigation, balancing transparency requirements with proprietary interests.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a request for trade secret protection (R. 262A VerfO) in connection with patent litigation involving Panasonic and OPPO/OROPE. The core dispute centered on the scope of confidentiality, specifically regarding licensing agreements and negotiations. While the court upheld some level of protection for sensitive information, it simultaneously limited access rights requested by the defendants to ensure procedural fairness across parallel UPC and national proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Court in Mannheim extended the deadlines for OROPE Germany GmbH to submit its pleadings regarding the FRAND aspect of the dispute. The extension was granted following a decision on the trade secret regime and aims to allow both parties sufficient time to address the complex licensing terms. This highlights the court's focus on ensuring procedural fairness while managing the complexity inherent in FRAND disputes.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a motion for protective measures concerning confidential information related to patent licensing and FRAND negotiations in the case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court carefully balanced the claimant's need for secrecy regarding sensitive commercial data against the respondents' demands for broader access during litigation. Ultimately, the protection was partially granted, establishing strict rules on who can view the documents and for what purpose.
Individual (unnamed) v.OrthoApnea S.L.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Brussels addressed an objection raised by OrthoApnea S.L. against the claimant's ability to amend their infringement case. The court rejected the respondents' attempt to block the addition of new facts and arguments based on equivalence. This decision reinforces that while initial pleadings are crucial, the procedural rules allow for necessary adjustments during litigation, provided they maintain coherence with the ongoing proceedings.
ARM Limited v.ICPillar LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application concerning service and confidentiality during appeal proceedings related to infringement of EP 3000239. Although the court confirmed that ARM was technically served with ICPillar's statement of appeal, it acknowledged technical difficulties preventing ARM from accessing the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy). Consequently, the Court granted an extension for ARM to file its response, ensuring due process is maintained despite CMS issues.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A VerfO in an infringement case involving OPPO and Panasonic. The court confirmed that the information was indeed confidential but modified the scope of access and rejected the demand for document destruction post-trial. This ruling provides clarity on balancing the need for secrecy with the practical requirements of litigation, particularly regarding permissible access by legal representatives.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this procedural case before the UPC Court of Appeal, 10x Genomics appealed an order from the CFI regarding provisional measures against Curio Bioscience. After requesting withdrawal and receiving consent from Curio, the Court granted the request. The ruling clarifies that even when an appeal is withdrawn by mutual agreement, the withdrawing party (10x) must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, setting a clear precedent for cost allocation in UPC appellate practice.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
In a significant procedural ruling concerning trade secrets, the UPC Local Court in Munich addressed requests for confidentiality related to litigation documents. The court consolidated and confirmed an order protecting specific information submitted by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi and its affiliates. This decision is crucial for practitioners as it sets clear boundaries on how sensitive business information can be handled during complex cross-border patent disputes.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited
In this complex UPC case, Panasonic Holdings Corporation asserts infringement of EP 2568724 against various Xiaomi entities and others. The court issued a detailed procedural order, focusing heavily on the technical nuances of LTE signaling, specifically concerning PUCCH and SRS bandwidth allocation and dynamic adjustments. The ruling sets the stage for deep dives into both infringement (how the features are implemented) and validity (whether prior art negates novelty or inventive step).
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott NV / SA, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott France, Abbott B.V., Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Laboratories
In a significant ruling, the UPC Paris Local Division revoked European Patent EP3435866, which covers an analyte monitoring system used in Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM). The revocation was granted following a counterclaim by Abbott against DexCom. Consequently, all of DexCom's infringement claims were dismissed. This decision underscores the robust nature of the UPC's jurisdiction over validity challenges and confirms that the claimant cannot unilaterally prevent a defendant from challenging patent validity.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this UPC decision concerning EP3024163, the court addressed a request for evidence production and confidentiality. While the main application was dismissed, the court consolidated and finalized the existing provisional confidentiality order. This final ruling sets strict boundaries on who can view confidential information, particularly related to FRAND licensing terms, reinforcing the importance of procedural safeguards in complex patent litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division addressed complex issues surrounding pleading redactions and deadlines in a multi-faceted infringement and revocation case involving Panasonic and Xiaomi. The court allowed for an exception regarding redacted documents but firmly maintained that the timelines for challenging the patent's validity (revocation) remain separate from the main infringement proceedings. This decision clarifies how procedural hurdles, such as document presentation, interact with substantive legal challenges in the UPC.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.SIBIO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; UMEDWINGS NETHERLANDS B.V.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached in an application for provisional measures concerning EP 2 393 417 B1, which covers analyte sensors. The settlement mandates that the Defendants cease offering the infringing products in Germany, France, and the Netherlands, destroy existing stock, recall products from distribution channels, and compensate the Applicant for all damages on the merits. This case highlights how parties can resolve complex infringement disputes early through negotiated settlements within the UPC framework.
AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This UPC decision addressed a request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A) in an ongoing infringement case involving video streaming technology. The court ruled that while the initial broad application of secrecy was rejected, specific access restrictions were granted to protect sensitive information related to the patented embodiments and litigation strategies. This ruling highlights the delicate balance courts must strike between maintaining trade secret integrity and ensuring fair legal proceedings.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision addressed an infringement action brought by Franz Kaldewei against Bette GmbH & Co. KG concerning a sanitary bathtub installation protected by EP 3 375 337 B1. The court found the respondent liable for infringing the patent in several member states, ordering preliminary damages of EUR 10,000.00. However, the overall claims were partially dismissed, resulting in a mixed outcome regarding liability and costs.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
In this UPC CFI decision, the court addressed a procedural challenge regarding an Application to Amend filed during a revocation action. The claimant argued that the defendant's application was inadmissible because it failed to use a separate workflow in the CMS. However, the Court rejected this argument, ruling that filing the amendment alongside the defense met the statutory deadlines and adhering strictly to specific CMS workflows cannot override principles of fairness. This decision provides clarity on procedural flexibility during the early stages of UPC proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In this procedural application, Microsoft Corporation challenged the admissibility of an infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy concerning EP 2 671 173. Microsoft argued that the claimant was improperly represented and that the statement of claim lacked specificity. The UPC rejected these arguments, holding that a representative's administrative involvement does not negate their independence for procedural purposes. The court also found that the claims for injunction and damages were sufficiently clear, allowing the infringement action to proceed.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Roche Diabetes Care GmbH and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. addressed a request for an extension of time to file a rejoinder in revocation proceedings. The Court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while flexibility is key in UPC procedure, extensions must be based on objective impossibility or extreme difficulty. This ruling reinforces the strict standard required for procedural relief, particularly when parties introduce new evidence.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision is a procedural order in an infringement case involving Panasonic against OPPO and OROPE concerning an LTE patent (EP 2 568 724). The court highlighted the need for claimants to provide detailed technical interpretations of complex claims early in the proceedings. Crucially, the judge raised several doubts regarding the scope and necessity of the FRAND rate determination counterclaims filed by the respondents, signaling potential procedural hurdles for these types of ancillary requests.
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
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues concerning deadline extensions and confidentiality requests (R. 262A) in a complex infringement case involving Dolby International AB against HP entities. The court established that comprehensive responses to FRAND objections require access to patent pool personnel, necessitating potential adjustments to disclosure rules. Crucially, the court opted for a uniform extension of all deadlines rather than a partial one, prioritizing procedural efficiency and preventing disparate timelines between technical and non-technical parts of the case.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen N.V. a.o. (including its subsidiaries and affiliates)
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Amgen's biosimilar product, BEKEMV®, which treats paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). The UPC Local Division dismissed Alexion's application for provisional measures. The court ruled that while infringement could be established, the patent's validity could not be proven with sufficient certainty, particularly due to concerns regarding insufficient disclosure of the claims. This decision highlights the high bar required in UPC preliminary injunction proceedings when patent validity is contested.
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, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application for assistance of a third party (Streithilfe) in a patent infringement case involving Dolby and various HP entities. The court ruled that Access Advance LLC, acting as the pool administrator, had sufficient legal interest to participate. This ruling clarifies the conditions under which a neutral third party involved in FRAND licensing pools can be admitted into UPC proceedings.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Samsung Bioepis regarding its biosimilar product Epysqli®, which challenges Alexion's patented antibody for treating PNH. The UPC Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. The court found that while infringement could be established, there was insufficient certainty regarding the patent's validity to warrant an immediate injunction.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In this procedural order within an infringement action, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy successfully argued for the protection of confidential business secrets contained in licensing agreements (Agreements A & B). The UPC Central Division ruled that these documents must be restricted from the respondent, Microsoft Corporation. This decision reinforces the importance of balancing commercial confidentiality with the right to a proper defense within the UPC framework.
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.