European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 47 of 67 · 2,007 total
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco (UK) Limited
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns an application by ICPillar LLC under R.262A RoP for confidentiality regarding Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal in proceedings concerning patent EP 3000239. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request for confidentiality, finding the reasons insufficient to justify protection of the information. The Court then addressed procedural consequences, granting ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response while rejecting ICPillar's argument that this created an equality of arms issue.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG and Others
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, in which the applicant Valeo Electrification sought leave to amend its application for provisional measures by deleting the word 'alternatively' from its claim, thereby converting an alternative claim into a main claim. The court granted leave, holding that Rule 263 RoP applies to provisional measure proceedings and that the amendment constituted an unconditional limitation under R. 263.3 RoP that did not unduly prejudice the defendants.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Respondent]
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a request for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP. The appellants (OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV) sought to suspend the deadline for filing their rejoinder pending the appeal of a decision by the Brussels local division that refused to extend the deadline beyond August 1, 2024. The standing judge held that the request for suspensive effect was admissible but unfounded, and referred the remaining requests to the competent chamber of the Court of Appeal.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco (UK) Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an application under R.262A RoP for confidentiality in appeal proceedings related to a security for costs order. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request to keep certain parts of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal confidential, and ordered that the unrestricted version be made available to ARM without any duty of confidentiality. The Court also gave ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response but rejected ICPillar's request to amend its own Statement of appeal, finding no equality of arms issue.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning EP 2 794 928 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant (Harvard) sought to introduce further written submissions and two expert reports shortly before the oral hearing, prompted by the German Federal Patent Court's revocation of the German part of the patent. The Judge-rapporteur dismissed the request, holding that it violated the front-loaded character of UPC proceedings and would unfairly prejudice the Claimant.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 028 981. The defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) filed a Rule 9 RoP application requesting permission to submit video recordings (Exhibits D 7b and D 7c) on USB sticks because their file size exceeded the CMS upload limit. The court granted the request and provided detailed procedural instructions for submitting physical exhibits.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH regarding EP2792100. The Xiaomi defendants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation, citing the need to obtain technical information from MediaTek under restrictive confidentiality obligations. The court rejected the request, finding that the defendants had not demonstrated exceptional reasons justifying an extension beyond the already adequate time limits provided under the Rules of Procedure.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European patent EP3404726. The intervening party Photon Wave sought suspension of the infringement proceedings pending a revocation action it had filed before the Central Division of Paris, and also requested allocation of a technically qualified judge. The Court rejected the suspension request, finding that the infringement proceedings were more advanced and that the Central Division was unlikely to retain jurisdiction, but granted the request for a technical judge.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of certain documents filed by Oerlikon in an infringement action regarding EP2145848. The court addressed the treatment of two documents: Document 37 (a Settlement Agreement with a Chinese operator) was withdrawn from evidence entirely, while Document 38 (commercial data) was granted confidential status with restricted access to a defined 'club' of individuals.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, and Osaka University
Two revocation actions brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine against proprietors of European Patents EP 3 056 563 and EP 3 056 564 were disposed of by the Central Division (Section Munich) after the parties reached a settlement. The Court held that parties may conclude their action by way of settlement without seeking a confirmatory Court decision under Rule 365 RoP, and disposed of the actions under Rule 360 RoP as they had become devoid of purpose. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees in each action, ruling that Rule 370.9(c) RoP is not limited to Court-confirmed settlements.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information filed by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG in an infringement action against Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding patent EP2145848. Oerlikon sought confidentiality protection for two documents (a Settlement Agreement with a Chinese third party and commercial data), requesting access be restricted to Himson's lawyers only. The Court excluded Document 37 from the evidentiary record entirely after Oerlikon withdrew it, and granted restricted 'club' access to Document 38 for Himson's lawyer, one technical consultant, and one natural person representing Himson.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Milan) that had revoked measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises granted in favor of Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against AWM Srl and SCHNELL S.p.A. The Court of Appeal held that applications for preservation of evidence under Article 60 UPCA imply disclosure of the evidence to the applicant, but that the other party must be heard on confidentiality before disclosure. The case was referred back to the Court of First Instance to properly consider Progress's requests for disclosure and to address confidentiality issues.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd and Others
This case concerns a dispute before the Local Chamber Mannheim regarding confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 479 680. The defendants (AYLO entities) sought review of the Rapporteur's confidentiality order, arguing that three natural persons named by the plaintiffs should be excluded from accessing confidential information about the operation of the accused embodiments. The panel rejected the application, confirming the Rapporteur's order and finding that the plaintiffs have a legitimate interest in involving persons familiar with the relevant IP and technology.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed whether Access Advance LLC, which intervened on the claimant's side as the administrator of the patent pool into which Dolby's HEVC-essential patents were contributed, should have access to confidential information filed by the defendants. The court held that an intervener is treated as a party and is entitled to have at least one natural person included in the circle of authorized recipients of confidential information.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl and counterclaims for revocation filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against European patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, relating to prosthetic heart valves with sealing mechanisms. The patent proprietor submitted multiple requests to amend the patent during the proceedings, ultimately proposing one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The Court rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended by auxiliary request II, and ordered costs to be borne 60% by the claimant and counterclaimants jointly and 40% by the defendant.
Nelissen v.OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV
This is a procedural decision from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning patent EP 2 331 036. The defendants (OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV) sought review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order that had permitted the claimant (Mr. Nelissen) to supplement his Reply with new facts, an equivalence-based infringement argument, and a modified petitum. The panel conducted a marginal review and confirmed the Judge-Rapporteur's decision in all respects, while granting the defendants leave to appeal.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerned a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl and counterclaims for revocation filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against European Patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, which relates to prosthetic heart valves with sealing mechanisms. The claimants and counterclaimants challenged the patent's validity on grounds including added subject matter, lack of enabling disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended by auxiliary request II submitted by the defendant during the proceedings, and ordered costs to be borne 60% by the claimants/counterclaimants and 40% by the defendant.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Meril Italy Srl filed a revocation action against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to prosthetic heart valves with sealing mechanisms. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation in related infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division, which were transferred to the Central Division Paris. The Court rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended by auxiliary request II submitted by Edwards, with costs split 60% against the claimants/counterclaimants and 40% against the defendant.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.
This case concerns a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 666 797 B1, owned by Amgen, relating to monoclonal antibodies binding to PCSK9 for treating hypercholesterolemia. The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (Munich Section) revoked the patent entirely for lack of inventive step under Article 138(1)(a) EPC in conjunction with Article 56 EPC, finding that neither the main request nor any auxiliary requests submitted by Amgen were valid. Amgen was ordered to bear Regeneron's legal costs in the amount of 1.375 million euro.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe v.Amgen, Inc.
The Central Division (Munich Section) of the Unified Patent Court revoked European Patent EP 3 666 797 B1 entirely for lack of inventive step. The patent, owned by Amgen, related to antigen binding proteins (antibodies) to PCSK9 for treating hypercholesterolemia. The court found that neither the main request nor any of the auxiliary requests submitted by Amgen involved an inventive step over the prior art, and ordered Amgen to bear the Claimants' legal costs.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 926 698 B1. The Korean plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., requested court-ordered simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing (scheduled for September 5, 2024) from German into English, arguing that its Korean representatives did not speak German. The court denied the request, holding that since Germany had designated English as an additional procedural language at the Düsseldorf Local Chamber, the plaintiff could have chosen English as the procedural language and avoided the need for interpretation altogether. The plaintiff was instead permitted to hire its own interpreter at its own expense.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated July 11, 2024, concerning Apple's request to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the deadline for Ona Patents SL to file its response to the appeal. The court rejected Apple's acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in expediting the proceedings did not outweigh Ona's interests in a proper proceeding. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action by Ona against Apple based on EP 2 263 098, and Apple's prior request to change the procedural language from German to English, which had been rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others (UPC_CFI_219/2023)
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation regarding information contained in its reply and annexes related to European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants, comprising multiple Xiaomi entities, Odiporo GmbH, and Shamrock Mobile GmbH, contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for their legal representatives across parallel proceedings. The court issued a final order classifying certain license agreement and negotiation information as confidential while restricting access to specified legal representatives and approved personnel, rejecting the more expansive requests of both parties.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered the referral of a counterclaim for revocation and the corresponding patent amendment request to the Central Chamber Paris. The court reasoned that since nearly all attacks against the patent in suit (EP 4 074 373) were already being pursued in a prior central revocation action filed by the first defendant, efficiency considerations favored having the Central Chamber decide on the counterclaim as well. The defendants' objections regarding the risk of divergent decisions, change of language, and the advanced stage of the central proceedings were rejected.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) to extend the deadline for filing their Duplik (reply) in a patent infringement case involving EP 3 024 163. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's Replik (rejoinder) was filed with numerous redactions serving as placeholders for later submissions, preventing them from preparing a complete response. The court held that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' is impermissible, but as an exception, ruled that the Duplik deadline had not yet begun to run.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others (UPC_CFI_219/2023)
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation regarding information contained in its unredacted reply and annexes, particularly relating to patent license agreements and negotiations. The defendants, multiple Xiaomi entities and other companies, contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for their attorneys in parallel proceedings. The court issued a final order classifying certain information as confidential, limiting access to specified persons, and rejecting further requests beyond the preliminary order.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement case involving EP 2 568 724. The court partially granted Panasonic's confidentiality requests regarding license negotiations and third-party patent license agreements, while rejecting broader requests. The court defined the scope of the confidentiality club, allowing access to procedural representatives in Mannheim and Munich proceedings and three named reliable persons.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 568 724, addressing Panasonic's request for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure regarding information contained in its unredacted reply and annexes, as well as licensing negotiations between the parties. The defendants (OPPO) contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for additional personnel and external counsel. The court granted partial confidentiality protection, defining a limited confidentiality club and restricting use of the protected information to UPC proceedings.
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.