European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 60 of 73 · 2,185 total
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that granted Microsoft Corporation's request for security for costs and declared Suinno's own request for security inadmissible. The Court of Appeal held the request for discretionary review inadmissible because Suinno had not first requested the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal, as required under Rule 220.2 RoP before a discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP can be pursued.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
1. The procedural efficiency must yield to the principle of the fair trial. Therefore, a request for extension of a time period must be denied where the opposing party has already met the correspondent shorter, ordinary time period.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This is a preliminary order in an infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP3977921 B1. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and both parties submitted various procedural applications including requests for communication of information, leave to change claims, dismissal of certain revocation grounds, and security for legal costs. The Court addressed procedural deadlines for further written submissions and preparation of the oral hearing, discussed the allocation of a technically qualified judge, and considered the claimant's application for leave to amend its prayer for relief.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This appeal concerned the determination of which party is the prevailing party under Article 69(1) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court following the dismissal of a claim after the defendant submitted an injunction and commitment declaration. The dispute involved European Patent EP 3 763 331 relating to a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses. The Court of Appeal held that when a defendant commits to comply with the plaintiff's requests after proceedings have been initiated, the plaintiff is generally considered the prevailing party, as the declaration itself implies that the plaintiff's requests have been fulfilled.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, , TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 863 637. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Munich) admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file through the Claimant's representatives, subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on an application by Samsung under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in a patent infringement action brought by US-based Headwater Research LLC concerning EP 2 391 947. The Court found that Headwater, a non-practicing entity with no assets other than patents used in worldwide litigation, failed to substantively challenge the Defendants' concerns about cost recoverability. The Court ordered Headwater to deposit €100,000 as security for costs within three weeks.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.,, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application by Access Advance LLC, administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 863 637. The court admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.,
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 645 714 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a legal interest and that allowing it would circumvent a non-disclosure agreement and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich admitted the intervention in support of the Claimant, subject to strict confidentiality restrictions limiting Access Advance's access to certain sensitive information.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.,
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of an HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a sufficient legal interest and that allowing intervention would circumvent an NDA and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich granted the application to intervene, subject to strict confidentiality protections and procedural conditions.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/10/2024 Order no. ORD_51903/2024 Applicant EOFLOW CO LTD (intervener) defendants 1) Insulet Corporation (applicant in the main proceeding)
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
1 1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_380/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/10/2024 In the matter INSULET CORPORATION 100 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720, USA represented by its CEO Jim Holl
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/10/2024 Order no. ORD_51903/2024 Applicant EOFLOW CO LTD (intervener) defendants 1) Insulet Corporation (applicant in the main proceeding)
Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns an application for discretionary review by the Court of Appeal under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The dispute involves three infringement proceedings between Xiaomi entities (as defendants) and Panasonic Holdings Corporation (as plaintiff) concerning European Patents EP 3096315, EP 2568724, and EP 2207270 before the Local Division Mannheim. The contested issue relates to the expiration and extension of deadlines under Rule 29(d) RoP for the plaintiff's reply to the counterclaim for revocation, rejoinder to the reply to the statement of defense, and response to a request to amend the patent, particularly in light of the plaintiff's submission of a partially redacted reply and subsequent confidentiality requests regarding third-party license agreements.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Volkswagen AG's request for rectification of a prior order that had directed Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in three related proceedings. Volkswagen sought to have the order rectified to include a notification under R.158.4 RoP that failure to provide security could result in a decision by default under R.355 RoP. The Court of Appeal declined rectification but issued a separate order providing the required notification to NST.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning notification pursuant to Rule 158.4 RoP in proceedings involving three European patents. Audi AG had requested rectification of a prior order that required NST to provide security for costs, seeking inclusion of a notification that failure to provide security could result in a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The Court declined to rectify the original order but provided the notification separately to NST.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent No. EP 3 466 498 B1 in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The defendants sought leave to file further written submissions by October 28, 2024, in response to a Court of Appeal order dated September 25, 2024. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected the application, finding that the appellate order provided no basis for permitting additional pleadings in the main proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in a main infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, applied for an order requiring the respondent Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to provide security for legal costs of at least EUR 800,000 (alternatively EUR 600,000), citing the respondent's alleged insolvency risk and lack of substantial assets. The respondent opposed the application and requested reciprocal security if any security order were granted. The Court analyzed the legal basis under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158(1) RoP, confirming its discretion to order security for costs when the respondent's financial position raises a legitimate concern that a costs order may not be recoverable or enforceable.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against three Optoma entities concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the defendants' deadline to respond and file any counterclaim for invalidity expired, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement. The defendants consented to the withdrawal and the agreed cost arrangements. The court permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a partial refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP3024163. The defendants filed a stay application based on a parallel UK High Court action seeking determination of FRAND license terms. The presiding judge referred the stay application to the full panel for decision, proposing that the matter be addressed during or after already scheduled oral hearings concerning related patents.
Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns a nullity counterclaim filed by Vibrantz GmbH against Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG, the registered patent holder of European Patent No. 3 215 288, while Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG is the substantive patent owner. Heraeus Precious Metals argued the counterclaim should have been directed against the substantive owner and was therefore manifestly hopeless or inadmissible. The Local Division Munich rejected these applications, holding that under Rule 25.1 in conjunction with Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure, a nullity counterclaim may validly be directed against the registered patent holder under Rule 8.6.
Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding the review of an order for interim measures in a patent dispute between Mammut Sports Group entities (based in Switzerland and Germany) and Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (based in Germany). The appeal raised multiple procedural and substantive issues, including the scope of appellate review in interim measure proceedings, the clarity required for appeal grounds, the treatment of late submissions, the assessment of urgency and waiting periods under Rule 211.4, and the applicability of Rule 263 to applications for interim orders. The Court of Appeal issued headnotes establishing important legal principles on these matters, while the full operative provisions of the order were not fully available in the provided text.
DATA DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v.DOYTEC AUTOMATION LTD.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. (DDT), proprietor of European Patent EP 2569713 relating to a method and apparatus for dispensing items, filed an ex-parte application for an order to preserve evidence against Doytec Automation Ltd. DDT alleged that Doytec's seed counting machine (C-1012), displayed at the Seeds meets Technology 2024 trade fair in Zwaagdijk-Oost, Netherlands, infringed claims 1 and 8 of EP713. The Court, sitting through a standing judge for extremely urgent matters, found jurisdiction and competence established and addressed the application for seizure of the machine and related documentation.
Unilever France v.Respondent
1 Paris local Division UPC_CFI_494/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/09/2024 REQUERANT (DEFENDEUR dans la procédure principale) Unilever France 20 rue des Deux Gares - 92500 - Rueil Malmaison CEDEX - FR Rep
OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal addressed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Division Mannheim concerning applications for the production of evidence under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendants sought evidence to support their FRAND defense in patent infringement actions brought by Panasonic concerning three European patents declared as standard-essential for the 4G mobile telecommunications standard. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant may rely on Rule 190.1 to request production of evidence, and that the first-instance court has discretion in balancing the defendant's interest in obtaining evidence useful for its FRAND defense against the other party's interest in protecting confidential information.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division – First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_380/2024 Procedural Order in a Review proceeding of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/09/2024. APPLICANT/S in the REVIEW proceedings 1) EOFLOW Co., Ltd. 302Ho, HUMAX VILLAGE
KIPA AB v.Respondent
SWAT Medical AB, a medical device company based in Sweden, filed an application seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 4 151 181, which was the subject of a revocation action between the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The applicant claimed a direct interest as a competitor and board member/investor in cardiac implant technology, citing concerns about a third-party product under development potentially covered by the patent's claims. The respondents (the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) opposed the application, with the Meril entities jointly requesting rejection and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation seeking dismissal.
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1 regarding the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the Rejoinder and specific exhibits as confidential and restricted access to designated representatives of the Applicant, Valeo Electrification. The court denied the Applicant's request to grant access to an additional lawyer, Thierry Lautier, who was not actively involved in the proceedings.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Volkswagen AG's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to dismiss infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Volkswagen had raised preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and the validity of opt-out withdrawals, and had sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP on grounds that NST lacked standing and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to defer preliminary objections to the main proceedings, and that Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and does not require a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an unnamed applicant's request under Rule 262.1(b) for access to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation as claimant and Meril Lifesciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB as defendants, relating to European Patent EP2628464. The applicant claimed to be a board member and investor in a medical device company in the cardiac implant technology field, seeking access as a competitor concerned about the patent's validity. Edwards Lifesciences opposed the request, arguing it lacked a concrete, verifiable, and legitimate reason, and referenced prior decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi-Aventis and Ocado v. AutoStore. The order addresses the principles of public access under Article 45 UPCA and the requirements for granting access under Rule 262.1(b).
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc. v.Ona Patents SL
This appeal concerned Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division regarding EP 2 263 098. The President of the Court of First Instance had rejected Apple's application on 18 June 2024, finding that Ona had relevant reasons to file in German given its contact person's language skills, the location of defendants' offices, and parallel German-language proceedings. On appeal, the Court of Appeal clarified that when assessing a language change request on fairness grounds, the internal working language of the parties and their ability to coordinate internally and obtain technical support are relevant circumstances, while the existence of other proceedings between the parties before a national court is of less relevance.
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.