European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 55 of 67 · 2,007 total
SAS LASER COMPONENTS v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd
Unified Patent Court decision.
ICPillar LLC v.Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by ICPillar LLC for an alternative method of service of its Statement of Claim in an infringement action against 12 defendants belonging to the ARM group of companies. The Court authorized alternative methods of service for Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. after standard service failed, but dismissed the request regarding UK entities because service under the Hague Service Convention was still in progress.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco
Unified Patent Court decision.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott France, Abbott, Abbott B.V., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Oy, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Logistics B.V., and Newyu, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, primarily comprising various Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The order addresses service difficulties and aligns the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur accepted the parties' agreed extension, setting the Statement of Defence deadline to 15 March 2024, with the starting point aligned to 15 December 2023.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
ITCiCo Spain S.L., the defendant in a revocation action brought by BMW concerning European patent EP 2 796 333, requested an extension of time to file its statement of defence until 29 February 2024. The judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris Seat) rejected the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of objective impossibility or extreme difficulty in meeting the deadline, and that submitting the extension request on the very last day of the deadline was inconsistent with the principle of fairness.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 611 989 (and EP 3 678 321). The court addressed whether to change the procedural language from German to English or to conduct the oral hearing in English. The court ordered that the procedural language remain German, but that the oral hearing and interim hearing be conducted in English based on the flexibility principles in Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Procedure.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Procedural order in infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning European Patent EP4070727. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., as the patent proprietor, sought alignment of the dates for the Statement of Defense, which had diverged for the two defendants due to different service dates. The court ordered both defendants to file their Statement of Defense on 14 March 2024, with the terms for reply and rejoinder adjusted accordingly.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Respondent
Unified Patent Court decision.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. Following an interim conference held on 25 January 2024, the judge-rapporteur issued an order addressing procedural matters, including the admission of late-filed prior art document D46, the value of the proceedings, and the confirmation of the oral hearing date.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
Unified Patent Court decision.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich). Following an interim conference held on 25 January 2024, the judge-rapporteur issued an order addressing procedural matters including the admission of late-filed document D46, the value of the proceedings, and the confirmation of the oral hearing date. The Court admitted document D46 into the proceedings, set the value of the proceedings at EUR 7,500,000, and confirmed the oral hearing for 17 April 2024.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEl GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
Unified Patent Court decision.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
Unified Patent Court decision.
NJOY Netherlands BV v.VMR Products LLC
Unified Patent Court decision.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finlan Oy, HP Italy S.r.l, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP - Computing and Printi
Unified Patent Court decision.
Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns an application by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. for suspensive effect of their appeal against a costs order of the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the appellants' interest in avoiding further costs from cost decision proceedings did not outweigh the respondent's interest in a quick decision on costs, and that the impugned order was not clearly erroneous.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Germany GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This case concerns a request for discretionary review before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the admissibility of an appeal against an order by a judge rapporteur. The judge rapporteur had refused to refer his earlier decision (that the Applicants' preliminary objection would be dealt with in the main proceedings) to the panel for review under Rule 333.1 RoP. The standing judge allowed the discretionary review request, permitting the applicants to appeal the 11 December 2023 order, and referred the case to the President of the Court of Appeal for assignment to a panel.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore AS [et al.], Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP
Unified Patent Court decision.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.