European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 50 of 67 · 2,007 total
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Volkswagen 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 1 875 683. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen 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.
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 1 875 683. 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 as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its Statement of appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal and shortening of deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
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 1 552 399. 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.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC. in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP, citing increasing legal costs. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application for security for costs against Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Arm Germany GmbH & Others (ARM Limited, Allinea Software GmbH, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany d.o.o, Apical Limited) v.Ex Parte
The provided document contains only metadata indicating approval signatures and timestamps dated 20–21 May 2024, with the phrase 'Hyväksyn dokumentin' (Finnish for 'I approve the document'). No substantive judgment text, facts, legal arguments, or operative decision is available in the source material.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Chamber Munich, alleging infringement of European Patent 2 043 492 (relating to hand-held vacuum cleaners) by SharkNinja's Shark Detect Pro models. The court granted the injunction, ordering SharkNinja to cease offering and supplying the infringing models in Germany and France, subject to a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation, while requiring Dyson to initiate main proceedings within 31 calendar days or 20 working days.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.Patent Proprietors of EP 3 170 639 B1
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. In response to prior art documents first submitted with the nullity complaint, the patent proprietors acknowledged the nullity claim and surrendered the patent in full. Both parties declared the main proceedings moot under Rule 360 RoP. The court held that it is generally unfair to impose costs on a patent proprietor who immediately surrenders the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity action, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs while granting a 60% refund of court fees.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 3096315, in which the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) sought production of various license agreements under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure to support their FRAND defense. The court rejected the defendants' production requests as overly broad fishing expeditions, while reserving the right to issue production orders at a later stage depending on further submissions.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo) v.Plant-e B.V. and Plant-e Knowledge B.V.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo), the defendant in a patent infringement action, applied under Rule 262A RoP for an order protecting confidential information contained in its rejoinder and Exhibits GP36 and GP39, which related to experimental data on its Bioo Panels. Plant-e contested the confidentiality, arguing the panels were publicly sold and the data could be reproduced. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) held that the redacted information qualified as confidential under Article 58 UPCA and R.262A.1 RoP, restricted access to a confidentiality club, and imposed a potential penalty payment of up to EUR 100,000 per breach.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
This case concerns an application for provisional measures before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP1944067. The defendants (UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) filed three applications seeking security for costs, an increased value of dispute, and allocation of a technically qualified judge. The court ordered the claimant Ballinno B.V. to provide security of €56,000, set the preliminary value of the dispute at €500,000, and dismissed the request for a technically qualified judge.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo) v.Plant-e B.V. and Plant-e Knowledge B.V. (Application for Protection of Confidential Information)
Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as 'Bioo'), the defendant in a patent infringement action concerning EP2137782, applied under R.262A RoP for an order protecting certain confidential information contained in its rejoinder and supporting exhibits. The Local Division The Hague held that the redacted experimental data concerning Bioo Panels qualified as confidential information within the meaning of Article 58 UPCA, and restricted access to a defined confidentiality club, with potential penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per breach.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848 owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers. The order addresses preparations for an interim conference scheduled for 27 May 2024, balancing the principle of public transparency with the protection of confidential information, particularly regarding litigation costs.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against 15 HP entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, which relates to video decoding devices for HEVC files. Following the defendants' request to summon NVIDIA Corporation as a third party, the plaintiff sought leave to limit its claims to exclude devices where the claimed video decoding means are implemented by graphics cards sold by NVIDIA or its affiliated companies. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the limitation as an unconditional restriction under R. 263.3 RoP, finding it was not merely a clarification but a permissible narrowing of the claim.
VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, and Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 883 277, which relates to electronic labels for displaying information in retail spaces. The appellant (VusionGroup SA, formerly SES-imagotag SA) sought interim measures against various Hanshow entities, alleging infringement of the patent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused products (various Nebular and Stellar Pro models) fell within the scope of claim 1 of the patent, particularly because it did not demonstrate that the antenna was positioned further toward the front face of the electronic label than the printed circuit board.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Lenovo EMEA DC
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072 owned by Headwater Research LLC. Defendants 3 (Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH) and 4 (Digital River Ireland, Ltd.) applied to extend their opposition deadline to align with that of Defendants 1 and 2. After the claimant consented to the extension, the court granted the request, extending the opposition deadline under Rule 19.1 RoP to 17 May 2024.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This order concerns a preliminary objection lodged by Tandem Diabetes Care entities (as defendants in a revocation action) seeking dismissal of a revocation action brought by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH concerning European patent EP 2 196 231. Tandem argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to a standstill agreement requiring 90 days' prior written notice before filing IP-related proceedings. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that while the standstill clause was valid and applicable to IP disputes, its violation constitutes a matter of inadmissibility rather than a ground for lack of jurisdiction.
CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
In a nullity action concerning EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, the claimants (CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V.) requested court-ordered simultaneous interpretation from German into Dutch, alternatively English, for an interim hearing and oral hearing. The court rejected the request for court-funded interpretation under Rule 109(1) RoP, finding that the claimants already had three German-speaking legal representatives who had extensively written in German, and that the language skills of one additional representative did not justify court-ordered interpretation. However, the court granted the subsidiary request for interpretation at the claimants' own cost under Rule 109(2) sentence 2 RoP.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd. & Others
Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants (TCL entities) requested that the plaintiff (NEC Corporation) be ordered to submit the HEVC standard version referenced in its statement of claim, as the annex submitted (Annex BP 6) inadvertently contained the predecessor AVC standard instead. The court ordered the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim within 10 days to provide the correct standard version.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The defendants raised issues including invalid opt-out withdrawal, lack of standing, overly broad infringement allegations, and jurisdictional concerns regarding UK damages. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP, partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments seeking dismissal of an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, NST's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) before the Unified Patent Court Local Division in Munich regarding EP 1 552 399 B1, against Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH. The defendants filed preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP and applications under rule 361 RoP, challenging the court's jurisdiction, the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, NST's standing, the scope of allegedly infringing embodiments, and jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding for reasons of case management efficiency.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on preliminary objections and requests filed by the defendants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP and partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, deferring the residual jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG and Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP and partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, deferring the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, Audi AG
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages and claims already pending in US proceedings. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP and partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, deferring the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding for reasons of case management efficiency.
Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages and parallel US proceedings. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications as manifestly unfounded, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the lack of jurisdiction issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC (NST) brought an infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 against Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments entities. The defendants filed preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP and applications under rule 361 RoP seeking dismissal on grounds including invalid opt-out withdrawal, lack of standing, overly broad infringement allegations, and lack of jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 preliminary objections, and deferred certain jurisdictional questions to the main proceeding.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
Huawei sued NETGEAR entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei asserted is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought a production order against itself to introduce a Wi-Fi patent portfolio license agreement with Amazon (dated 5 March 2024) into the proceedings, together with confidentiality protection for its contents. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the provisional production and confidentiality orders and additionally allowed the use of the license agreement and its confidential information in a related parallel proceeding concerning EP 3 678 321.
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.