European UPC Patent Cases
1,878 decisions indexed
Page 59 of 63 · 1,878 total
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
This order was issued by the judge-rapporteur in a revocation action concerning European patent No. EP 3 414 708. The order addressed three procedural issues: the validity of the patent's priority claim, the allowable form of amendments, and late-filed attacks on validity. The judge-rapporteur ruled that the priority claim validity issue should remain part of the proceedings, deferred amendment-related issues to the oral hearing, excluded novelty attacks based on MB5 and MB6, but admitted sufficiency attacks targeting the amended version of the patent.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
This order concerns a revocation action brought by BITZER Electronics A/S against European patent EP 3 414 708 held by Carrier Corporation. The judge-rapporteur addressed procedural and substantive issues arising from the interim conference, including the validity of the priority claim, the admissibility of certain patent amendments, and late-filed attacks on novelty and sufficiency. The ruling permitted the priority challenge to proceed, excluded late-filed novelty attacks based on documents MB5 and MB6, allowed sufficiency attacks targeting the amended patent, and deferred questions regarding the admissibility of certain amendments and the twelfth auxiliary request to the oral hearing.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns a request by FUJIFILM Corporation to extend the time period for filing its reply to the defendants' Statement of defence, Counterclaims for revocation, and application to amend European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. The defendants had filed confidential information related to alleged private prior use and business figures, and access was initially restricted to the claimant's representatives. The court granted the extension until 28 May 2024, finding that the delayed and restricted access to confidential information constituted an exceptional case justifying the extension.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 1 838 002, with Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited as the plaintiff alleging patent infringement against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation of the patent. The court addressed the procedural question under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court regarding whether the infringement action and revocation counterclaims should be heard together or separated. Both parties agreed that the action and counterclaims should be heard together before the same panel, and the court ordered that they be jointly heard before the Local Chamber Munich.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This appeal concerned five revocation actions brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International, Inc. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, relating to five European patents. The statements for revocation incorrectly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' rather than 'Juul Labs International, Inc.' The Court of Appeal addressed whether the claimant could rectify this naming error and considered the issue of costs under Rule 242.1 RoP. The Court held that rectification could be granted where it was clear from the circumstances that the claimant intended the action against the defendant, and that no order for costs would be issued at the appeal stage since the decision was not a final order concluding the action.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation , Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement dispute involving standard-essential patents (SEPs) for 3G and 4G standards. The plaintiff (Panasonic) alleges infringement of its patent, while the defendants (including OPPO) counter that Panasonic's licensing demands during prior negotiations were not FRAND. Both parties requested the court to order production of evidence, including license agreements, to determine what constitutes FRAND terms in this case.
Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany u.a. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE regarding European Patent EP1612910. The defendants requested that certain information in their Rejoinder, particularly projected sales figures for a potential twelve-month enforcement period, be declared confidential trade secrets with access restricted to a maximum of three named reliable persons. The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing the defendants were attempting to delay proceedings. The Local Chamber Hamburg issued a final procedural order addressing the confidentiality and access restrictions under Rule 262A.
Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) to classify certain information in their Rejoinder as confidential trade secrets under Rule 262A, specifically projected sales figures for a potential twelve-month enforcement period following a possible injunction. The defendants sought to restrict access to no more than three named reliable persons. The plaintiff (Avago Technologies) opposed the request, arguing it was a delay tactic and sought to lift the preliminary access restrictions. The Judge-Rapporteur of the Local Chamber Hamburg issued a final procedural order addressing the confidentiality and access restriction application.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This order concerns an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to confidential information or evidence to certain persons during appeal proceedings. Curio Bioscience Inc., the appellant and defendant in the main proceedings before the Court of First Instance, sought to restrict access to a redacted document (Annex CR-1) filed in support of its appeal against the rejection of its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court of Appeal held that an unappealed order of the Court of First Instance under Rule 262A restricting access to certain information remains in effect after the conclusion of proceedings, including during appeal proceedings, unless otherwise specified.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning EP 3 476 616 (DE and UK designations) relating to lithographic/printing plates. Fujifilm had sued Kodak for patent infringement before the Mannheim Local Division, and Kodak counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance's revocation of the German designation, finding the patent valid and infringed by Kodak's Sonora plates, and granted extensive remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, and damages. For the UK designation, the Court of Appeal dismissed Fujifilm's appeal and held that the condition for Kodak's counterclaim for revocation was not fulfilled.
NOVAWELL v.C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_397/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/03/2024 APPLICANT: C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED 3 Bramley's Barn The Menagerie, Skipwith Road - YO19 6ET - Escrick - GB Represented by Denis Schertenleib RESPONDENT: NOVAWELL
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bisscience Inc.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-03-22) under reference UPC-001556, 10x Genomics, Inc. appeared in dispute with Curio Bisscience Inc. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding procedural remedies against decisions of the Rapporteur concerning objections (Einspruch) under Rule 19 RoP. The appellants (Netgear entities) challenged a procedural order from the first instance dated December 11, 2023, in proceedings involving alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989. The Court of Appeal addressed the proper procedural pathway for challenging the Rapporteur's decisions on objections, clarifying the interplay between Rule 333.1 RoP review by the panel and Rule 220.2/220.3 RoP appeals.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Osaka University, Healios K.K
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. EP3056564, owned by Healios K.K. and Osaka University, brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The order was issued by the judge-rapporteur following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024 via video conference, addressing procedural matters in preparation for the oral hearing. Key decisions included confirming the parties' maintained requests, addressing the status of parallel EPO opposition proceedings (with defendants declining a stay), and admitting the second declaration (D21) into the proceedings subject to conditions on the defendants' reply.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This case concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. EP3056563, owned by Healios K.K., Riken, and Osaka University, with Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine as the claimant. Following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024 via video conference, the judge-rapporteur issued procedural decisions on the admissibility of evidence and the value of the dispute. The court admitted a second declaration (D18) into the proceedings subject to conditions, and set the value of the dispute at 4,000,000 EUR for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs.
Laser Components SAS v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance procédurale du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 13/03/2024 DEMANDEUR: Laser Components SAS 45B Route des Gardes 92190 Meudon - FR Representé par Helge von Hirschhausen DEFENDEUR: Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd 6
UPC Decision UPC-001562 v.Respondent
UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_5/2024 PR_APL_189/2024 ORDER of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 March 2024 pursuant to Rule 229.5 RoP HAEDNOTE Under Rule 220.2 RoP an appeal from an order without leave is inadmissible from the outset and, as
UPC Decision UPC-001561 v.Respondent
UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_5/2024 PR_APL_189/2024 ORDER of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 March 2024 pursuant to Rule 229.5 RoP HAEDNOTE Under Rule 220.2 RoP an appeal from an order without leave is inadmissible from the outset and, as
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315 before the Local Chamber Munich. Following an oral hearing on January 30, 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to confirm the settlement. The defendant consented to the settlement and both parties jointly requested its confirmation, confidentiality of its details, and noted that costs were already settled within the agreement.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This procedural appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned the time limits available to Netgear for filing a Statement of Defense and any counterclaim for revocation after Huawei extended its infringement action to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Local Division Munich had ordered the second patent's claims to be separated from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. During the interim hearing, Netgear conditionally withdrew its requests to set aside the separation order and to reject the claim extension, provided Huawei agreed to a three-month deadline to respond to the claim extension running from the Court of First Instance's order of January 18, 2024.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This procedural appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned the time limit for filing a Statement of Defense after a claim extension to add a new patent. Huawei had originally filed an infringement action on June 1, 2023, based solely on EP 3611989, and later sought to extend the claim to include EP 3678321. The Local Division Munich allowed the extension, prompting Netgear to appeal. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the defendant must be afforded the same time limit to respond to a newly added patent as would apply if a fresh action had been filed regarding that patent.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning a procedural appeal filed by Netgear against a decision of the Local Division Munich that separated the portion of the action based on European Patent EP 3678321 from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The central legal principle established is that the principle of due process requires that when a new patent is added to an already pending action, the defendant must be granted the same time limit to file a statement of defense—and potentially a counterclaim for revocation—as would apply if a new action had been filed regarding that patent. During the interim hearing, Netgear conditionally withdrew certain requests subject to Huawei's agreement on an extended three-month response deadline.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a corrigendum order from the Court of Appeal correcting Headnote 2, paragraph 3 of a prior order dated February 26, 2024, due to an obvious incorrectness. The case concerns European Patent EP 4 108 782 and involves proceedings on provisional measures between 10x Genomics and Harvard College as applicants/appellees and NanoString Technologies entities as respondents/appellants. The corrected headnote restates the principles of patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC and its Protocol, clarifying that the patent claim is not merely the starting point but the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection.
AUGUST DEBOUZY v.Respondent
Martin Lionel applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for public access to several Registry documents and communications related to revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_263/2023) between BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The respondents did not submit any comments on the application. The judge-rapporteur held that Rule 262(1)(b) covers only written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties, and does not extend to Registry communications, formal-checks notifications, or court orders on procedural matters such as stays.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural requests by the plaintiff Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 646 825. The plaintiff requested that the interim hearing scheduled for March 14, 2024 be held in person rather than by video conference, and that the court provide simultaneous interpretation from German to English. The presiding judge denied both requests, holding that switching from video to in-person requires demonstrated unconditional necessity, and that the plaintiff must resolve the tension created by its own choice of German as the procedural language for an English-granted patent with international parties.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-03-04) under reference UPC-001572, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This document is uploaded for technical (CMS ) reasons only, in order to close the workflow. Margot Elsa KOKKE Digitally signed by Margot Elsa KOKKE Date: 2024.12.13 17:26:00 +01'00'
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order concerns a review request filed by Novawell against an ex parte saisie order granted to C-Kore Systems Limited, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 265 793 relating to subsea apparatus and testing. The Court examined whether Novawell's review request was filed within the 30-day time limit under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure, addressing when the 'execution of the measures' begins for purposes of calculating that deadline. The Court also considered the criteria for granting the ex parte order, the distinction between preserving evidence and inspection procedures, and the conformity of the saisie carried out by an expert assisted by a bailiff with French national law.
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.