European UPC Patent Cases
1,592 decisions indexed
Page 48 of 54 · 1,592 total
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS FRANCE Société à responsabilité limitée
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for deadline extensions in an infringement case involving Dolby International AB and ASUS entities. The core issue was balancing the standard two-month response period against the need to protect confidential business secrets under R. 262A VerfO. The court found that restricting access initially constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the extension of deadlines, thereby upholding procedural fairness for the claimant.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a stay of proceedings in a patent revocation action. Mala Technologies, the patent proprietor, sought to halt the main revocation case pending decisions on preliminary objections and parallel national appeals. The Court ultimately denied this request, citing that the interests of the defendant (Nokia Technology) in obtaining a swift validity decision outweighed the claimant's interest in cost avoidance. This ruling reinforces the principle that UPC proceedings should proceed unhindered by procedural appeals unless exceptional circumstances are met.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd; CUPOWER Europe GmbH
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division decided to consolidate the infringement lawsuit brought by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against CUPOWER entities with a counterclaim for patent revocation regarding EP 2 011 218 B1. The court justified this unified approach based on efficiency and the moderate complexity of the technology involved. This decision sets an important precedent for how UPC panels manage complex litigation, allowing them to address both infringement and validity simultaneously.
Amycel LLC v.Szymon Spyra
This procedural order addressed a request for simultaneous interpretation during preliminary injunction proceedings in the UPC. The individual defendant, Szymon Spyra, requested Polish-English interpretation due to language concerns. Although the Court affirmed the right of parties to be heard, it rejected the request for court-funded interpretation (R. 109.1 RoP). Instead, the Defendant was permitted to arrange and pay for his own interpreter (R. 109.4 RoP), emphasizing that costs are generally borne by the party requesting non-official language support.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope and persistence of confidential information protection orders (R.262A RoP) across different procedural stages. The court held that confidentiality obligations established by the CFI remain fully effective in subsequent appeal proceedings, negating the need for redundant protective measures. This ruling provides clarity on how parties must manage sensitive evidence when appealing decisions.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the procedural application of confidentiality rules (R. 262A RoP) during appeal proceedings. The court held that if information was already protected by a CFI order, parties do not need to file redundant requests for protection in the appellate phase. This streamlines litigation by preventing duplication of protective measures.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited et al.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural motions concerning an appeal against a security for costs order. ICPillar LLC sought suspensive effect on the order requiring them to deposit €400,000 and requested the appeal be expedited. The Court ultimately rejected both requests, emphasizing that while Article 74 UPCA provides grounds for granting suspensive effect, such relief must be exceptional. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural appeals should not unduly hinder proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
In a provisional measures case concerning an on-body glucose sensor device (EP3831283), the UPC Court of First Instance denied the application filed by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The core finding was that the patent likely suffers from 'added matter,' making it probable that the claims would be invalidated during full proceedings. This decision not only blocked the preliminary injunction but also mandated that the applicant bear the costs of the current proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. regarding its CGM patent (EP2713879). The UPC Local Division granted the provisional measures, finding sufficient interest in the case despite initial objections from the defendants. This ruling is highly significant for medical device IP holders, demonstrating the court's willingness to grant immediate relief based on a cease-and-desist declaration when the application has legitimate purpose.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
In this provisional measures case concerning an on-body glucose sensor device, the UPC Court of First Instance denied the preliminary injunction sought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The core finding was that the patent in question (EP3831283) suffered from 'added matter,' making it highly probable that the patent would be invalidated if the full merits proceedings were held. This decision underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to the scope of claims during prosecution and litigation within the UPC framework.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought provisional measures against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. regarding the alleged infringement of its CGM device patent (EP2713879) by the GS1 device. The UPC Local Division granted a preliminary injunction, immediately prohibiting the defendants from offering or placing the infringing product on the market in the relevant member states. This ruling is significant as it demonstrates the court's willingness to grant urgent relief based on sufficient interest, even when facing initial objections.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Ltd; Google Commerce Ltd
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Google (the defendants) to change the language of proceedings from German to English. Despite arguments regarding the patent's original grant language and the defendants' international presence, the court ultimately rejected the application. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing interests, particularly protecting smaller entities like the claimant against the convenience of large corporate defendants.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement case concerning EP 2263098. The court ultimately dismissed this application, balancing the interests of both parties. While Apple argued that the technical nature and corporate language favored English, the court found that Ona Patents SL had sufficient reasons—including parallel national proceedings and local resources—to proceed in German.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal order addressed a procedural request by Volkswagen AG to submit additional written pleadings in an appeal concerning security for costs. The court found the request sufficiently reasoned, allowing Volkswagen to correct facts presented by Network System Technologies LLC. (NST). This decision highlights the flexibility of the UPC's rules regarding the exchange of evidence and arguments during appellate proceedings.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court addressed the validity of serving a statement of claim at an international trade fair. The court affirmed that a temporary business presence, such as a booth at a major exhibition, qualifies as a valid place for service of process under UPC rules. This decision is significant for patent practitioners involved in cross-border litigation, confirming practical methods for initiating proceedings against foreign entities.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the exchange of written pleadings in an ongoing infringement appeal. Audi AG successfully requested permission to submit additional statements, arguing that the opposing party, NST, had misrepresented facts during the proceedings. The court granted this request, allowing both parties more time to present their arguments before the substantive issues are decided.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request from Volkswagen AG seeking permission to submit additional written pleadings in an appeal concerning security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC. The court confirmed that under the Rules of Procedure, parties can lodge reasoned requests to exchange further submissions if necessary to correct facts or clarify issues. By allowing this request, the Court ensured all relevant factual arguments could be presented before closing the written phase.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request regarding the exchange of written pleadings during an appeal concerning security for costs. Audi AG successfully argued that it needed to correct certain facts submitted by NST, and the Court granted permission for additional submissions. This ruling reinforces the flexibility within the UPC's Rules of Procedure (RoP), allowing parties to refine their arguments even late in the written phase if a reasoned request is made.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal order addresses a procedural motion in an appeal concerning security for costs. Volkswagen AG successfully requested permission to submit additional written pleadings, arguing the need to correct facts presented by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The court granted this request, allowing both parties to exchange further statements before closing the written procedure. This highlights the UPC's willingness to maintain a dynamic procedural environment to ensure all relevant factual and legal points are addressed.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the exchange of written pleadings during an appeal concerning security for costs. Audi AG successfully petitioned the court to allow it to submit additional facts and evidence, arguing that the initial proceedings contained factual errors by the opposing party, NST. The court granted this request, allowing both parties further time to refine their arguments before closing the written phase.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request for confidentiality rather than patent infringement itself. The Court of First Instance granted the defendants' motion to classify specific exhibits (SA-1 and SA-9) as strictly confidential under Rule 262A. This ruling is significant for practitioners, reinforcing the court's commitment to protecting sensitive commercial information during litigation proceedings.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a request for protective measures concerning confidential business information submitted by Tesla entities. The court found that specific operational and financial data provided by the defendants—such as average selling prices and vehicle allocation details—were genuinely sensitive and not publicly available. This decision reinforces the importance of Rule 262A EPG VerfO, providing a crucial mechanism for parties to safeguard proprietary information during complex patent litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a request for protective measures concerning confidential business information submitted by Tesla entities in relation to an ongoing patent dispute involving Avago Technologies. The court found that specific operational and financial data provided by Tesla—such as average selling prices and internal inventory numbers—were genuinely non-public and required protection under Rule 262A EPG VerfO. This decision is significant for practitioners, reinforcing the UPC's commitment to balancing transparency with the need to protect sensitive trade secrets during litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Mannheim addressed requests for deadline extensions across multiple parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving Panasonic and Xiaomi. The court distinguished between technical arguments, which were immediately accessible to the defendants, and complex FRAND-related submissions, where delayed access justified a specific extension. This decision underscores the importance of procedural coherence in UPC litigation, requiring parties to submit pleadings in unified final versions rather than fragmented drafts.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC decision is procedural, concerning a preliminary measures application related to EP2152073. The defendants requested a postponement of the oral hearing due to scheduling conflicts for their counsel. After considering both parties' availability and the Court's proposed dates, the court granted the request, rescheduling the hearing.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Samsung Electronics to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The claimant, Headwater Research LLC, did not object to the change, and consequently, the President of the Court granted the application. This decision is significant as it establishes a clear path for aligning procedural language with the patent's grant language in UPC cases.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion regarding the production of corporate documents in an infringement case involving Avago Technologies and Tesla. The respondents sought internal Board of Directors resolutions to challenge the claimant's legal standing (active legitimation) concerning patent ownership and assignment validity. The court partially granted this request, compelling the claimant to produce specific transfer authorization documents necessary for the respondent to properly defend their position under Rule 190.1.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG initiated infringement proceedings against Bhagat Textile Engineers concerning a textile machinery patent (EP2145848). The case is currently in the procedural phase, with the court addressing key evidentiary issues such as whether the defendant commercialized the infringing machines. The judge issued a detailed order setting strict deadlines for both parties to submit documents related to expert reports, royalties, and settlement proposals. This ruling highlights the UPC's rigorous approach to evidence management before proceeding to trial.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application to partially withdraw an appeal in an infringement case. The claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to remove two respondents (Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE) from the ongoing appeal proceedings. However, the Court ruled against this withdrawal, emphasizing that even indirect interests—such as those related to service obligations or the course of litigation—constitute a legitimate interest under UPC rules. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural fairness requires all affected parties to be heard.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical procedural requirement for opting out of the Unified Patent Court's jurisdiction. The court ruled that an opt-out application must be lodged by or on behalf of every proprietor holding any national part of the European patent. This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of Art. 83(3) UPCA, ensuring that no single owner can unilaterally remove a patent from UPC competence if co-ownership exists across different member states.
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.