European UPC Patent Cases
1,878 decisions indexed
Page 60 of 63 · 1,878 total
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_495/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 28/02/2024 APPLICANT ICPillar LLC 4265 San Felipe Street, Suite 1100 77027 - Houston, Texas - US Represented by Lionel Martin RELEVANT OTHER PARTIES ARM Limited 110 Fulbou
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/02/2024 DEMANDEUR : 1) Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd 65-16, Sandan-ro 163beon-gil, Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do - KR Représenté par Pauline Debré DÉFENDEUR :
Meril Italy srl v.Respondent
This case concerns a generic application (App_7364/2024) lodged within a revocation action (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3646 825. The claimant, Meril Italy srl, requested permission to exchange further written pleadings, arguing that the defendant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, introduced new defence arguments in its rejoinder regarding the priority issue and the alleged scope of the patent. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi considered the request under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, which confers discretionary powers to the judge-rapporteur to allow further exchange of written pleadings upon a reasoned request.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The appellants (NanoString Technologies entities) appealed against an order in proceedings initiated by the respondents (10x Genomics and Harvard College). The order addresses key legal principles including the examination of formal requirements under Rule 206.2 RoP, the interpretation of patent claims under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient degree of certainty required for provisional measures under Rule 211.2 RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding preliminary measures for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on December 16, 2023, all three NanoString entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on February 4, 2024. The applicants (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the proceedings be stayed due to the insolvency, and the respondents (NanoString) agreed. The Court of Appeal held that, under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, the proceedings did not need to be stayed because the insolvency occurred only after the close of oral hearings and the case was ready for decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This order concerns two appeals filed by AIM Sport Development AG against a decision of the Local Division Helsinki that dismissed AIM's requests for a preliminary injunction, evidentiary measures, and an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 295 663, on the ground that the patent had been opted out of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal identified a potential procedural defect: AIM lodged its Statement of appeal on 20 December 2023, within two months of service, whereas the applicable Rule 224.1(b) RoP requires appeals against orders under Articles 60 and 62 UPCA to be lodged within 15 days of service. The Court invited both parties to submit written comments on whether the non-compliance should lead to inadmissibility of the appeal.
NanoString Technologies Inc.; NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH; NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.President and Fellows of Harvard College; 10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The applicants, 10x Genomics and Harvard College, sought provisional measures against NanoString Technologies entities. The order addresses key legal principles regarding formal requirements for provisional measure applications, patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient certainty required under Rule 211.2 RoP. The decision establishes important guidance on burden of proof allocation between applicants and defendants in provisional measure proceedings.
Sanofi v.Amgen, Regeneron
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2024-02-24) under reference UPC-001587, Sanofi appeared in dispute with Amgen, Regeneron concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.
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 Softw
This is a 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) UPCA, to hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and FRAND licensing together rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The court reasoned that joint hearing promotes efficiency, allows for a unified interpretation by the same panel, and is justified given the court's early operational stage and the part-time availability of some panel members.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. , OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim. The court decided, after hearing the parties, 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' counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license under Art. 33(3)(a) EPGÜ. The court further directed the Reporting Judge to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Netgear for shortening of time limits (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 Chamber Munich that granted Huawei's request to extend its claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321) in the main proceedings, which originally concerned only EP 3611989. The Court of Appeal rejected the application for acceleration, holding that filing on the last day of the applicable time limits did not justify shortening, given the respondent's interests and principles of due process, even though this could result in the statement of defense being filed in the first instance proceedings before the appeal is decided.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH a. o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-21) under reference UPC-001601, FUJIFILM Corporation appeared in dispute with Kodak GmbH a. o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_454/2023) brought by Tandem Diabetes Care entities regarding European patent EP 2 196 231, to extend the deadline for filing its defence to revocation. Roche argued that a pending preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction would not be decided before the current deadline expired, making it unreasonable to finalize submissions that might become unnecessary. The Court, presided by Judge Paolo Catallozzi, considered the request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which grants discretionary powers to extend time periods upon reasoned request.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an action for declaration of non-infringement filed by Tandem Diabetes Care entities against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 196 231. While Roche's preliminary objection on jurisdiction was pending, Roche filed a procedural application seeking an extension of the deadline to file its defence. The Court examined Roche's request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, weighing arguments relating to the pending preliminary objection, parallel revocation proceedings, and the potential for a stay under Rule 76(3).
Plant-e B.V., Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action (UPC_CFI_239/2023) brought by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. against Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo) regarding European Patent No. EP2137782. The defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation, raising the question under Article 33(3) UPCA of whether to bifurcate or jointly hear the infringement and revocation proceedings. Both parties jointly requested a joint hearing, and the panel decided to proceed with both matters jointly for reasons of procedural expediency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. against a cost order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings initiated by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 763 331 relating to a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses. After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist declaration that Edwards accepted, the first-instance court found the interim measures moot, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Meril to bear the costs up to €200,000. Meril appealed seeking to shift the costs to Edwards and requested suspensive effect of the appeal.
Panasonic Holding Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
1 Local division Mannheim UPC_CFI_210/2023 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 February 2024 here: Application for production of documents and protection of confidential information acc. to R. 190/191, 262, 262A RoP Patent at issue 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.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-13) under reference UPC-001610, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against three Dexcom entities before the Paris Local Division. The order addresses service difficulties, particularly with Dexcom International Limited in Ireland, and aligns the deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence for all three defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur approved the parties' agreed reasonable extension, setting the starting point for all defendants at 15/01/2024, with the Statement of Defence expected by 15/04/2024.
SAS LASER COMPONENTS v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-12) under reference UPC-001614, SAS LASER COMPONENTS appeared in dispute with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
ICPillar LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP3000239, brought an infringement action against twelve defendants of the ARM group of companies. When standard service methods failed—particularly delivery to Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. in Poland—the Claimant sought authorization under Rule 275.1 of the Rules of Procedure for alternative methods of service. The Court authorized alternative service only to the extent that the original methods had failed, rejecting the proposed method that merely replicated the already-attempted registered letter approach, and clarified the application of the ten-day delay rule under the Hague Service Convention.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-12) under reference UPC-001612, ICPillar LLC appeared in dispute with ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott, Abbott B.V., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott France, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, including multiple Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The dispute centered on the alignment of deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence (SoD) across all defendants, given that service on some defendants was delayed or still in progress. Following a case management meeting where all parties orally agreed on a reasonable extension date, the Judge-Rapporteur ordered that the time limit for filing the SoD be aligned for all defendants, with the starting point set at 15 December 2023 and the SoD expected by 15 March 2024.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc./Netgear Deutschland GmbH/Netgear International Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three NETGEAR entities regarding European Patents EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321. The central procedural issue was whether to change the procedural language from German to English, given that both patents were granted in English and two members of the panel were not native German speakers. While the defendants consented to a full language change and the plaintiff opposed it but was open to conducting the oral hearing in English, the presiding judge ordered that the oral hearing be conducted in English while keeping the procedural language as German.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited
This order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three NETGEAR entities regarding European Patents EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321, both granted in English. The court addressed whether to change the procedural language from German to English, and whether the oral hearing should be conducted in English. The defendants consented to a change of language to English, while the plaintiff opposed a full change but was open to conducting the oral hearing in English. The presiding judge ultimately ordered that the oral hearing be conducted in English, applying the flexibility principles of Rule 1.1 RoP.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Respondent
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed a revocation action against ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking revocation of European patent EP 2 796 333 before the Central Division (Paris Seat). ITCiCo Spain S.L. filed a procedural application seeking an extension of the time limit for delivery of its statement of defence to 29 February 2024, citing delayed access to case exhibits through the Case Management System and the illness of its long-standing European Patent Attorney. BMW opposed the extension, arguing that service had been completed on 25 November 2023 and the defence was accordingly due by 25 January 2024. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi issued the order on 9 February 2024.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_424/2023 Procedural order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 9 February 2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 16/11/2023 Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego -
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Respondent
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2024-02-08) under reference UPC-001620, Ocado Innovation Limited appeared in dispute with Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.