European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 61 of 73 · 2,185 total
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
This case concerns an appeal by Google against the rejection of its application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in patent infringement proceedings initiated by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of First Instance had denied Google's request, finding that Ona had legitimate reasons to file in German, including its contact person's fluency in German and parallel proceedings in Munich. The Court of Appeal addressed the additional circumstances relevant to a fairness-based change of language request under Article 49(5) UPCA.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Audi AG's appeal against orders of the Munich Local Division that had dismissed Audi's preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP in three parallel patent infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Audi had argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over damages claimed in the UK and Northern Ireland, that the opt-out withdrawal was invalid due to lack of power of attorney, that NST lacked standing for pre-acquisition damages, and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the timing of preliminary objection decisions is within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and not for evaluating the sufficiency of claim substantiation.
Dexcom Inc. v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego - US Statement of c
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Respondent
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from prior proceedings in which Ballinno B.V. had sought provisional measures against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH concerning European Patent EP1944067. The Claimant did not comment on the request, while the Defendants did not object provided that sensitive technical data constituting trade secrets was redacted. The Court addressed the application for public access to the court documents, balancing transparency with the protection of confidential information.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Audi AG's applications for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court held that NST, a small US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity with only two employees, no physical assets, and limited funding, failed to provide sufficient comfort that a possible cost order would be recoverable. The Court ordered NST to provide security for costs in amounts of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000, and EUR 300,000 in the three related proceedings, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank, within three weeks of service.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on September 17, 2024, rejecting the plaintiff's application to examine its own party expert as a witness in the oral hearing. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sought this examination in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724 against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., arguing that the deadline for its replication on the FRAND counterclaim was insufficient to address the defendants' expert opinion. The court held that the application was filed after the close of the interim proceedings and that the procedure of examining one's own party expert as a witness is not provided for in the Rules of Procedure.
Dexcom International Limited v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego - US Statement of c
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This appeal concerned a dispute over European patent EP 2 044 709 B1, which had effect only in Germany. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that while Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply to UPC proceedings during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, they did not require the UPC to decline jurisdiction because the German revocation action and the UPC proceedings did not involve the same parties. However, the Court of Appeal granted Mala's auxiliary request to stay the UPC revocation proceedings pending a final decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the parallel German revocation proceedings.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Volkswagen AG appealed orders of the Munich Local Division dated 23 April 2024 that had denied Volkswagen's applications for security for costs in three related patent infringement proceedings involving European Patents EP 1 875 683, EP 1 552 399, and EP 1 552 669. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, finding that NST had failed to provide sufficiently substantiated information demonstrating it could cover a possible cost order, and that NST's status as an SME did not exempt it from providing security. The Court ordered security in reduced amounts of EUR 100,000 in two cases and EUR 300,000 in the third, payable within three weeks by deposit or EU bank guarantee.
Meril Italy srl, Meril GmbH, Meril Life Science Private Limited v.Respondent
Central Division Paris Seat ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central division (Paris seat) issued on 17 September 2024 concerning the generic procedural applications Nos. App_45333/2024 and 51629/2024 lodged in the proceedings UPC_CFI_189/2024 APPLICANT
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG RESPONDENT Himson Engineering Private Limited PATENT AT ISSUE Patent no. P
*** v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance, Local Division Brussels, in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 331 036. The order was issued following an Interim Conference held on 6 September 2024 under Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure. The court explored the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, noting willingness on the plaintiff's side and limited willingness on the defendants' side, primarily due to substantial costs already incurred.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
This is an interim procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the preparation of oral hearings in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, is proceeding against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The order sets out the scheduling and structural framework for the oral hearing, dividing it into a first day dedicated to technical issues (uniform interpretation of the patent, validity, and infringement by standard) and a second day addressing FRAND-related matters, including the FRAND counterclaim.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the preparation and structuring of the oral hearing in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sues several Xiaomi entities and other defendants. The presiding judge coordinated the hearing date and provided detailed instructions on the structure of the proceedings, with the first day dedicated to technical aspects (uniform interpretation of the patent, validity, and standard-essential infringement) and the second day to FRAND-related issues.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.Respondent
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) against ITCiCo Spain S.L. regarding European Patent EP 2 796 333, which relates to a graded control signal system for warning vehicle users of speeding conditions. The claimant sought a decision by default under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure after the defendant failed to submit any request or defense. The court examined the conditions for issuing a default decision, considering the requirements of Rule 355 and the discretionary assessment under Rule 335.
ICPillar LLC v.SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Germany GmbH, Apical Limited, Arm Sweden AB, ARM Limited
ICPillar LLC appealed a Court of First Instance order requiring it to provide security for costs (EUR 400,000) in its patent infringement action against ARM entities before the Paris Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the Insurance Policy submitted for the first time on appeal would be disregarded under R.222.2 RoP, and that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank did not constitute adequate security under R.158 RoP.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Microsoft Corporation for review and setting aside of an order restricting access to documents deemed business secrets in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The respondent, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, had successfully obtained a confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, limiting access to certain Microsoft attorneys and directors. Microsoft filed alternative requests including dismissal of the Rule 262A application, a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on representative independence requirements, amendment of the access list, and leave to appeal. The available text of the order is incomplete and does not contain the panel's full reasoning or operative ruling.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application with the Court of First Instance of the UPC Paris Central Division seeking annulment of a decision of the European Patent Office (EPO) dated 10 July 2024, made in carrying out tasks under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012. The Court forwarded the application for interlocutory revision to the EPO, which subsequently rectified the contested decision in accordance with the Claimant's request. As the Claimant did not identify any particular circumstances justifying reimbursement, the Court closed the case without prior consultation of the parties.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc.,
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued several Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 B1, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. The dispute concerned the interpretation of claim 20 of the patent and whether the Belkin defendants' activities constituted patent infringement. The Local Chamber Munich issued its main decision on 13 September 2024, addressing issues including claim construction, the definition of an infringer, and the possibility of injunctions against company officers as intermediaries.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court decided, pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) of the EPG Agreement in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Grundfos Holding A/S against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. and the defendant's counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The decision was made before the close of the written procedure, with the consent of both parties, in order to allow early assignment of the technically qualified judge and to avoid scheduling delays.
Primetals TechnologiesAustria GMBH v.Danieli &c. spa Danieli Automation spa
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2624977 relating to a driver for a steel strip coiling installation, filed an ex-parte application for preserving evidence and inspection against Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A. before the Local Division in Milan of the Unified Patent Court. The applicant alleged that during a September 2023 visit to its customer Nucor Steel Gallatin in Kentucky, US, it discovered a driver for a steel strip coiler manufactured by the Danieli group that appeared to reproduce the teachings of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 of EP977. The applicant sought an order for inspection of the defendants' premises to collect and preserve technical, advertising, and commercial documentation relating to the allegedly infringing drivers.
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning the correction of party designation in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The plaintiff had originally named a non-existent entity 'Lenovo EMEA DC' as the fifth defendant, which defendants 1-4 argued was not a party-capable entity under Dutch law. The court addressed whether the plaintiff could correct the party designation to identify the correct defendant, Flextronics International Europe B.V., by way of analogous application of Rule 305 of the Rules of Procedure.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 197 316 B1 concerning an oral cleaning system with motivational feedback for electric toothbrush users, filed an application for provisional measures against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese company selling 'Oclean' brand electric toothbrushes. The dispute concerned the alleged infringement by Philips of the 'X Ultra S' and 'X Pro Digital' toothbrush models being exhibited at IFA 2024 in Berlin. The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on September 9, 2024, addressing the application for interim injunctive relief.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. The order revokes a prior directive that had appointed a translation expert, after the parties agreed that the defendants' submitted translation of the priority application could be used and that the relevant Chinese-language documents were identical with respect to the passages relevant to the dispute, particularly regarding 'Preferred Embodiment 2.'
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., v.Respondent
1 Hamburg – Local Division UPC_CFI_88/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued: 09/09/2024 PARTIES: Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, represented by Herrn Götzl, Sandhofer Straße 116, 68305 Mannheim, Germany, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 1
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 372 863. The plaintiff, Philips IP Ventures B.V., requested postponement of the oral hearing originally scheduled for September 11, 2024, citing the rescheduling of a parallel proceeding's decision date and the strategic importance of another related case. The defendants consented to the postponement, and the presiding judge granted the request, rescheduling the hearing to October 23, 2024.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a review under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in three parallel proceedings relating to European Patents EP 2 568 724, EP 2 207 270, and EP 2 315. The defendants challenged the rapporteur's order that only partially granted their request to extend the deadline for filing a rejoinder to the plaintiff's reply on the non-technical (FRAND) part. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on the review of the time-limit extension request.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
This case concerns a panel review of an order dismissing a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Defendant, Aarke AB, sought security of EUR 400,000, arguing that enforcement of a UPC cost order in Israel would be impossible or unduly burdensome due to the reciprocity requirement under Israeli law. The panel dismissed the application for review, finding that the Claimant (part of the PepsiCo group) was financially capable of complying with a cost order and that no sufficient facts supported a likelihood of unenforceability, while granting leave to appeal.
Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft. v.Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc.
1. Art. 25 UPCA constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws and whose content is to be inter- preted independently by the Court. 2. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer has al- ready set the stage for it to occur. The infringement is only a matter of starting the action
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Central Division, Paris Seat, which had rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing the risk of an injunction in parallel infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, holding that the interests advanced by Meril did not justify shortening the procedural timetable at Edwards' expense.
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.