European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 54 of 67 · 2,007 total
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on 16 December 2023, all three NanoString respondents filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on 4 February 2024. Both parties requested suspension of the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests, holding that under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, proceedings need not be suspended under Rule 311.1 of the Rules of Procedure when a party is declared insolvent only after the close of oral hearings and the case is ready for decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal. AIM Sport Development AG appealed a decision of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Helsinki) that dismissed its actions due to the UPC's lack of competence over European patent EP 3 295 663 owing to its opt-out. The Court of Appeal identified that AIM had lodged its appeal within two months of service, but the applicable time period under R.224.1(b) RoP for appeals against orders under Art. 60 and Art. 62 UPCA was 15 days, and invited both parties to comment on the non-compliance and its consequences.
Sanofi v.Amgen, Regeneron
Unified Patent Court decision.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding European Patent EP 2 568 724, deciding to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3)(a) UPCA to combine these proceedings for reasons of efficiency and procedural economy.
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 European Patent EP 3 096 315. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) UPCA, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's nascent operational situation.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl
Unified Patent Court decision.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's request for acceleration of appeal proceedings under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed an order of the Local Division Munich that separated the claim based on EP 3678321 from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1. The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening of time limits, finding that granting it would not adequately consider Huawei's interest in adequate preparation time and would violate principles of proportionality, fairness, and equity.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2207270. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, to jointly hear the infringement action together with the counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's early operational stage.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S. & Ors.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2568724 in proceedings between Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and multiple Xiaomi group entities as defendants. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court to order that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, together with a FRAND-related counterclaim under Article 33(3)(a), be heard jointly. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's nascent operational situation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, in which Panasonic Holdings Corporation (plaintiff) brought an infringement action against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (defendants). The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 RoP in conjunction with Art. 33(3) UPCA, to jointly hear the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim rather than bifurcating the proceedings.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's application for acceleration of appeal proceedings and shortening of time limits under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed a decision of the Local Division Munich that allowed Huawei to extend its infringement claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening the time limit for filing the response to the appeal, finding that granting the request would prejudice Huawei's right to adequate preparation time and would conflict with principles of proportionality, fairness, and due process.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 3096315, in which Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued multiple Xiaomi entities for patent infringement. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, to jointly hear the infringement action together with the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license, rather than bifurcating the proceedings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH a. o.
Unified Patent Court decision.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH a. o.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231, requested an extension of time to file its defence to revocation until 8 April 2024 (or alternatively 18 March 2024), citing a pending preliminary objection and a parallel action for declaration of non-infringement. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the discretionary power to extend time limits under Rule 9(3) RoP should only be used in justified exceptional cases where a party demonstrates objective difficulty in arranging a defence, and that under Rule 19(6) RoP the lodging of a preliminary objection does not affect the deadline for the statement of defence unless the judge-rapporteur decides otherwise.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in an action for declaration of non-infringement concerning European patent EP 2 196 231, requested an extension of the deadline for filing its statement of defence until 8 April 2024 (or alternatively 18 March 2024), citing a pending preliminary objection and a parallel revocation action. The judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris Seat) rejected the request, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any objective difficulty in arranging a proper defence and that the mere possibility that submissions might become unnecessary did not justify an extension of the statutory deadline.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2137782. The defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the court had to decide whether to hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly or to bifurcate. Both parties requested a joint hearing, and the court ordered that it would proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA.
Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the appeal fee in a dispute over European Patent EP 3 763 331 (a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses). The Court of Appeal determined that Meril, as appellants, must pay an appeal fee of €11,000 by analogy to the fee for an appeal under Rule 220.1(c) RoP regarding provisional measures under Article 62 EPCA, since the fee table contains no specific provision for an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP against a costs order issued under Rule 360 RoP.
Panasonic Holding Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
The court established a comprehensive confidentiality regime for the protection of confidential information, particularly relating to licence agreements concerning standard essential patents. The court declined to issue a court order for document production at this early stage, instead requiring parties to obtain consent from third-party licence agreement partners. A detailed 13-step procedure was outlined for handling confidential documents through the Case Management System.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action filed by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against three Dexcom entities regarding European Patent EP3988471. The order addresses the extension and alignment of deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence, following difficulties with service of the Statement of Claim. The Judge-Rapporteur aligned the starting point for the Statement of Defence period for all three defendants to 15/01/2024, with the deadline set at 15/04/2024.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (relating to a metal sintering preparation). The court addressed multiple procedural applications, including a review of a prior refusal to allow amendment for indirect infringement of a process claim, and requests by both parties to extend the proceedings to Romania following its accession to the UPC Agreement on September 1, 2024. The court granted the amendments, revised its prior order, set a new briefing schedule, increased the dispute value to €1.25 million each, and allowed appeal.
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.