European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 51 of 67 · 2,007 total
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, NST's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's authority over UK-related damages claims. The court dismissed the rule 361 RoP requests and partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, deferring certain jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, Audi AG
Network System Technologies LLC (NST) brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 against Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Deutschland, Volkswagen, and Audi. The defendants filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 RoP and applications under Rule 361 RoP, challenging jurisdiction (alleging invalid opt-out withdrawal), NST's standing, the broad scope of allegedly infringing embodiments, and the Court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the Rule 361 applications as manifestly unfounded and partially dismissed the Rule 19 preliminary objections, deferring the residual jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division in Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed 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 1 552 669 B1. The defendants challenged 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 claims. 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.
Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH seeking dismissal of 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 lack of jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications as manifestly unfounded, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, 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 applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments) in 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 rule 361 RoP applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the lack of jurisdiction issues to the main proceeding.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request under Rule 262A RoP for a confidentiality order. The applicant Oerlikon sought to protect financial information (document no. 19) filed in preparation for the Interim Conference regarding costs documentation, requesting that access be limited to a 'club' of only Bhagat's lawyers, excluding the party itself. The respondent Bhagat did not oppose the request, and the court granted the confidentiality order, finding the information qualified as confidential under Article 58 UPCA.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. (UPC_CFI_218/2023)
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered the severance of proceedings under Rule 303.2 RoP in a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315 against multiple Xiaomi-related defendants. The court separated the proceedings against the four defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong (Defendants 1, 2, 7, and 8), whose complaints had not yet been served, from the main proceedings against the remaining defendants already represented by counsel, to allow the main case to proceed without delay.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. (UPC_CFI_223/2023)
Order of the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court dated May 6, 2024, concerning EP 2 207 270, separating the proceedings against four Xiaomi defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong from the main proceedings. The separation was ordered under Rule 303.2 RoP because service to those defendants must be effected abroad via the Hague Service Convention, which would delay the proceedings, while the remaining defendants were already represented by counsel.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS (with Photon Wave Co., Ltd. as Intervening Party)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Paris, concerning an infringement action filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. against Laser Components SAS regarding European patent EP3404726. The intervening party, Photon Wave Co., Ltd. (Laser Components' supplier), sought to autonomously file a counterclaim for invalidity, obtain an extension of deadlines, and change the language of proceedings from French to English. The court rejected all of Photon Wave's procedural requests, ruling that an intervenor cannot develop autonomous claims contrary to the party it supports, and that the language change was not justified.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. (EP 2 568 724)
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The court ordered the separation of proceedings against defendants 1, 2, 7, and 8 (Xiaomi entities based in China and Hong Kong) from the main proceedings, because service abroad under the Hague Service Convention would take considerable time and would delay the proceedings against the other defendants who were already represented by counsel.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning standard-essential patents (SEPs) for 3G and 4G standards. The court addressed competing requests from both parties for the production of license agreement evidence relevant to determining whether the plaintiff's licensing demands were FRAND. The court ordered mutual production of certain 4G SEP license agreements while reserving decisions on further requests and confidentiality matters.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Mala Technologies Ltd. (the patent proprietor) in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 2 044 709 B1, which is valid only in Germany. Mala Technologies argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction because a prior revocation action had been filed with the German Federal Patent Court, relying on Articles 29-32 and 71b of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the lis pendens provisions of Article 71c(2) Brussels I Reg recast only apply when both proceedings are initiated during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, and since the German revocation action was filed before that period, the UPC retained jurisdiction.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl and SCHNELL S.p.A.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted suspensive effect to an appeal filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against an order of the Local Division Milan that revoked provisional measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises, and ordered the restitution of gathered evidence to the respondents. The Court held that enforcement of the restitution order pending the appeal would render the appeal largely ineffective, as the return of evidence would be difficult to reverse if the appeal succeeded.
Keestrack N.V. v.Geha Laverman B.V.
Keestrack N.V. filed an infringement action against Geha Laverman B.V. before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning European patent EP3713672. Before any substantive proceedings, Keestrack filed a request to withdraw the action with the defendant's consent. The court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant under Rule 370.9(b) RoP.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.
Daedalus Prime LLC sought a panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order denying its request for an extension of time to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings concerning EP 2792100. The Court of Appeal confirmed the denial, holding that Daedalus could and should have sought external advice and comprehensively set out its arguments before lodging the Statement of claim, and that CMS issues were insufficient to justify an extension.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
This order concerns a subsequent request by the patent proprietor (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) to amend European patent EP 3 646 825 in revocation proceedings brought by Meril Italy srl. The defendant sought to replace its earlier rejected application (containing 84 auxiliary requests) with a streamlined request comprising one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The Court admitted the subsequent request, exercising its discretionary powers under Rule 30(2) RoP, and granted the claimant one month to file an additional defence.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 2 568 724, a standard-essential patent (SEP). Panasonic Holdings Corporation, the plaintiff, sought a court order directing itself to produce two specific license agreements, as it was prevented from voluntarily submitting them due to confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the production of both license agreements, allowing redactions of passages not relied upon by Panasonic in its factual allegations and legal arguments, while rejecting further requests.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc. sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience Inc. before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1 concerning methods and arrays for localized detection of nucleic acid in tissue samples. The court found that 10x Genomics had standing as the registered patent proprietor and that Curio Bioscience's product fell within the scope of patent claim 14. The court granted a partial injunction limited to the specific embodiment of claim 14, ordered mutual provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 100,000, and required 10x Genomics to post security of EUR 2,000,000 before enforcement.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Panasonic Holdings Corporation, the plaintiff in a standard-essential patent (SEP) infringement action concerning EP 3 096 315 before the Local Chamber Mannheim, sought a court order directing itself to submit two license agreements that it could not voluntarily disclose due to confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the submission of both license agreements, permitting redactions of passages not relied upon by Panasonic for its factual allegations and legal arguments, while rejecting further requests.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) addressed whether a patent proprietor may amend claims that were not challenged in a revocation action. BITZER Electronics had filed a revocation action against Carrier Corporation's European patent EP 3 414 708 limited to claim 1, and Carrier sought to amend the patent with respect to additional non-challenged claims. The Court held that the right to amend a patent during litigation is a defensive tool limited to reacting to the invalidity challenge, and therefore declared the amendment request inadmissible with regard to claims other than claim 1.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc. sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience Inc. before the Local Division in Düsseldorf for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1, which protects methods and products for localised detection of nucleic acid in tissue samples. The court granted a partial injunction restraining Curio Bioscience from offering, marketing, using, or possessing certain arrays with poly-T capture probes in Germany, France, and Sweden, subject to 10x Genomics providing security of EUR 2,000,000. Both parties were ordered to provisionally reimburse each other's costs in the amount of EUR 100,000 each, reflecting their partial success.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270 in a standard-essential patent (SEP) dispute. Panasonic Holdings Corporation, as plaintiff, sought a production order directed against itself to compel the submission of two license agreements whose disclosure was restricted by confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the production of both license agreements, permitting redactions of passages not relied upon by the plaintiff, while rejecting further requests.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The claimant, 10x Genomics, Inc., filed an infringement action against Curio Bioscience Inc. in German, but both parties subsequently agreed to switch the procedural language to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The court approved the joint request and ordered the proceedings to continue in English.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether AIM Sport Development AG's appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Helsinki) was timely. The Court of First Instance had dismissed AIM's infringement and provisional measures actions concerning EP 3 295 663 for lack of competence due to an opt-out, and incorrectly stated a two-month appeal period applied. The Court of Appeal held that under Rule 224.1(b) RoP, the correct appeal period for orders under Article 62 UPCA was 15 days, but due to the ambiguity in the rules and the misleading information provided by the Court of First Instance, AIM's appeal was admissible under the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Ex Parte
Procedural Order
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V. and Juul Labs International Inc.
Nicoventures Trading Limited, a party to EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3 430 921, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International, Inc. before the Central Division (Paris Seat). The Court granted access to all written pleadings and evidence currently contained in the CMS, but rejected requests for court-generated documents, future materials, and materials not yet visible through the CMS.
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 is essential for the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Netgear raised an exhaustion defense based on a Qualcomm chip in some accused embodiments and sought production of Huawei's August 2020 license agreement with Qualcomm. The Local Chamber Munich ordered Huawei to produce the agreement with confidentiality protections and a daily coercive fine of up to €20,000, while rejecting the remaining requests of both parties.
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based company, under Article 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division in Munich dismissed the applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties or insolvency risk, and that NST's non-EU domicile could not serve as a basis for ordering security.
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The defendants in a UPC patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based SME. The Local Division Munich dismissed all three applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of difficulties in enforcing a cost order in the US or of NST's insolvency, and that NST's patent portfolio constituted seizable intangible assets.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG and Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
The defendants in a UPC patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based SME. The Local Division Munich dismissed the applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties in the US or of NST's insolvency, and that NST's patent portfolio constituted seizable intangible assets.
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.