European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 49 of 67 · 2,007 total
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited and Others
ICPillar LLC appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Paris) requiring it to provide security for legal costs of €400,000 in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 3000239. ICPillar requested suspensive effect of the impugned order or, alternatively, expedition of the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect and no urgency warranting expedition of the proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC). Abbott was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, and the value of the dispute was set at EUR 4,000,000.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 2 713 879 relating to an apparatus for an on-body continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor device, sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. for allegedly infringing the patent through the marketing of the GS1 CGM device in Europe. The Local Division The Hague granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a sufficient interest and that the Defendants' unilateral cease-and-desist declaration did not render the application devoid of purpose.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL (Application to Change Language of Proceedings)
Apple entities (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings from German to English before the Local Division Düsseldorf of the UPC Court of First Instance. The patent in suit, EP 2263098, was granted in English. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, finding that the balance of interests favored retaining German as the language of proceedings, given that two of the five Apple defendants are based in Germany, Ona Patents is a small Spanish start-up with limited resources, and parallel proceedings between the same parties were already being conducted in German before the Munich regional court.
Google Ireland Ltd and Google Commerce Ltd v.Ona Patents SL (Application to Change Language of Proceedings)
Google Ireland Ltd and Google Commerce Ltd (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings before the Local Division Düsseldorf from German to English, the language in which European Patent EP 2263098 was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, finding that while English is commonly used in the relevant field of technology, the balancing of interests weighed against changing the language given Ona Patents' specific circumstances, including its contact person's fluency in German and the existence of parallel proceedings in German before the Regional Court of Munich.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute arose from Volkswagen's application for security for costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP, which was denied by the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich). The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi sought to respond to NST's Statement of response to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its behavior in the market. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding it sufficiently reasoned under Rule 36 RoP, and granted NST 14 days to file a response.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order permitting service of the statement of claim on the defendant at a trade fair stand in Amsterdam. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, a trade fair stand can constitute a temporary place of business where service may be effected, provided that deliveries are also being promoted there, which is typically the case.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi had appealed a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought permission to file additional pleadings to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding Rules 35 and 36 RoP applicable mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings and that Audi's request was sufficiently reasoned.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its request under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP for NST to provide security for legal costs. After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought leave to lodge additional written pleadings to correct certain factual submissions made by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, holding that Rules 35 and 36 RoP apply mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent 1 838 002, in which the defendants (Tesla entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A for group-internal information contained in a late-filed written submission. The court granted the request, finding that while overall Tesla production figures and sales prices are publicly known, the specific numbers and average sales prices underlying the defendants' application were not publicly accessible. The plaintiff was restricted to disclosing the protected information only to specifically named employees, with potential penalties of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A) filed by the defendants (Tesla entities) in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent 1 838 002. The defendants sought protection for confidential business information contained in a late-filed submission, including vehicle numbers, sales prices, and financial calculations. The court granted the confidentiality protection, finding the information was credibly not publicly available, while allowing the plaintiff access through a limited number of named representatives.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns proceedings for preliminary measures related to European Patent EP 2 152 073 before the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance. The defendants (Sumi Agro companies) applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for confidentiality protection of two confidential exhibits (SA-1 and SA-9). The claimant (Syngenta Limited) did not formally object, and the court granted the confidentiality protection as requested, restricting access to specifically named employees.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 568 724, in which Panasonic Holdings Corporation sues multiple Xiaomi entities and other defendants. The defendants sought an extension of deadlines for their Duplik, Replik to the revocation counterclaim, and response to the patent amendment request until August 6, 2024, citing delayed access to the plaintiff's redacted FRAND-related submissions. The court partially granted the extension until July 19, 2024 for the FRAND-related submissions but rejected the extension regarding the technical aspects of the case, and ordered that further main submissions be filed in a single coherent final version.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S., and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. – Application for Change of Language of Proceedings (UPC_CFI_54/2024) v.Ex Parte
This is an order by the President of the Court of First Instance of the UPC Local Division Munich concerning an application by the Samsung defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC based on EP 2391947. The claimant did not object to the change, and the President granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, the language in which the patent was granted.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings for preliminary measures related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. The defendants requested postponement of the oral hearing scheduled for 11 July 2024 due to a scheduling conflict of their representative. The court granted the request and rescheduled the hearing to 12 July 2024 at 8:00 a.m.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Milan in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2145848. The order addresses various procedural matters following the Interim Conference, including the claimant's access to the expert's report from the prior evidence preservation order, deadlines for further submissions, the value of the case, and confirmation of the oral hearing date.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Unified Patent Court decision.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Others
Daedalus Prime LLC applied to withdraw its appeal against two of five respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, while continuing the appeal against the remaining three respondents. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the two respondents had a legitimate interest in the appeal being decided because they had been served with the Statement of claim, had responded to the appeal, and would be directly or indirectly affected by the outcome regarding service on affiliated companies.
Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG v.Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld a decision that an opt-out from UPC jurisdiction was invalid because it was not lodged by all proprietors of all national parts of the European patent. Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (Neo) had argued that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for European patent EP 3876490 was valid, but the Court ruled that Article 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge the opt-out application. The appeal was rejected, and the revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe was allowed to proceed before the UPC.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Others
Nera Innovations Ltd. appealed a decision of the Local Chamber Hamburg rejecting its request to serve the complaint on two Chinese Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Germany. After filing the appeal, Nera sought partial withdrawal of the appeal against the two European Xiaomi entities (Netherlands and Germany), seeking to continue the appeal only against the Chinese entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the partial withdrawal, holding that Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE had a legitimate interest in remaining in the appeal proceedings since they had already been served and had filed responses.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg in a patent infringement action concerning a Rule 190.1 RoP application by the Defendants (Tesla entities) seeking to compel the Plaintiff (Avago) to produce Board of Directors resolutions related to the authorization of the patent transfer and power of attorney. The Court granted the application in part, ordering production of three of the four requested documents relating to the authorization chain and the transfer of the patent from the transferor corporation, but denied the request concerning the recipient entity (Avago General IP).
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 relating to a method and system for detecting an offside situation using sound signals, sought a preliminary injunction against UEFA and Kinexon entities to prevent the use of 'Connected Ball Technology' at the UEFA European Football Championship 2024. The Hamburg Local Division dismissed the application, finding that Ballinno had not acted with sufficient urgency and had failed to sufficiently prove infringement, as the Connected Ball Technology uses acceleration measurement rather than the sound signal sensing required by the patent claims.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Others v.Headwater Research LLC (Language of Proceedings Order)
The President of the UPC Court of First Instance granted Samsung's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC concerning EP3110069. The Court found that the use of German was more detrimental to Samsung, which did not choose the language and needed to organize its defence in English, while adopting English would not cause inconvenience to Headwater, a US company that already uses English in its communications and preparatory work.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
Carrier Corporation, proprietor of European patent EP 3 414 708 (relating to adaptive sensor sampling of a cold chain distribution system), appealed an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Paris seat) that rejected its request to stay revocation proceedings pending parallel opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, holding that the UPC will not normally stay revocation proceedings and that the mere fact that the EPO has granted accelerated opposition proceedings is not sufficient to justify a stay under Rule 295(a) RoP.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
This procedural order concerns a dispute over deadlines for filing the Statement of Defense in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant sought to shorten the deadline for Defendants 3), 4), and 6), while the Defendants requested an extension to July 8, 2024. The Court extended the deadline for all relevant Defendants to July 8, 2024, relying on Court of Appeal jurisprudence regarding non-compliance with Rule 13.2.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied their application for security for costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside their appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
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.