European UPC Patent Cases
1,878 decisions indexed
Page 61 of 63 · 1,878 total
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1, filed by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College. Following the close of written pleadings, the judge-rapporteur held an interim conference addressing several procedural matters, including the translation of a prior art document, the admissibility of late-filed prior art (D46), the handling of auxiliary requests, and the value of proceedings. The court admitted D46 into the proceedings after the Defendant withdrew its objection, set the value of proceedings at EUR 7,500,000, and scheduled the oral hearing for 17 April 2024 in Munich.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v.Respondent
The Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to the written pleadings and evidence in proceedings between Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Neither respondent opposed the request, with Suinno limiting its objection to confidential portions and Microsoft leaving the decision to the Court's discretion. The Presiding Judge held that the interest in ensuring impartial and independent proceedings without external interference prevails over the interest in file access where the matter concerns a purely legal and general issue, and that such access can be satisfied through the written pleadings and evidence already available.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
This is a cost decision (Kostenfestsetzungsentscheidung) by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. Following the Court of Appeal's reversal of the first-instance decision—which had found infringement and dismissed the revocation counterclaim—the defendants sought reimbursement of costs already paid under the original cost decision, as well as costs for both instances. The court held that when a cost decision is issued before appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is subsequently amended, the original cost decision loses its basis, and amounts already reimbursed are recoverable in subsequent cost proceedings.
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
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-19) under reference UPC-001635, Dolby International AB appeared in dispute with 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 concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
1 Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 18 January 2024 concerning an application for suspensive effect DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS 1. Meril GmbH Bornheimer Straße 135-137, 53119 Bonn, Germany 2. Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. M1-M2, Meril Park, Su
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-17) under reference UPC-001638, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
Netgear Inc., Germany GmbH, 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
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2024-01-10) under reference UPC-001641, Ocado Innovation Limited appeared in dispute with Autostore AS [et al.], Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Edrich u.a.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-03) under reference UPC-001644, Philips IP Ventures B.V. appeared in dispute with Edrich u.a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Edrich u.a.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-03) under reference UPC-001643, Koninklijke Philips N.V. appeared in dispute with Edrich u.a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Amagen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Sanofi -Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron pharmaceuticals Inc.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-02) under reference UPC-001647, Amagen Inc. appeared in dispute with Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Sanofi -Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron pharmaceuticals Inc. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Mathys & Squire v.Astellas, Healios, Riken, Osaka University
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2023-12-28) under reference UPC-001648, Mathys & Squire appeared in dispute with Astellas, Healios, Riken, Osaka University concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_424/2023 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22 December 2023 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego -
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp.Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns a procedural request by the Appellants (Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH) for expedition of appeal proceedings, specifically seeking shortening of the time period for lodging the Statement of response pursuant to R.9.3(b) RoP. The appeal was directed against an order of the Court of First Instance concerning the language of the proceedings under R.323 RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request, finding that the interests of the Respondent (Panasonic Holdings Corporation) and principles of due process outweighed the Appellants' interest in expedition, even though this meant the Statement of defence in the main proceedings would have to be lodged in the contested language of proceedings.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp.Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance regarding the language of the proceedings under R.323 RoP. The Appellants (OPPO and OROPE Germany) filed a request on the last day of the time periods under R.224.1(b) and R.224.2(b) RoP for expedition of the appeal proceedings, seeking shortening of the time period for lodging the Statement of Response. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for expedition, holding that despite the procedural inconvenience, the interests of the Respondent and principles of due process required that the Statement of Response be filed in the normal time period, even though this meant the Statement of Defence in the first instance proceedings had to be lodged in the contested language of proceedings.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
This case before the Local Division Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 359 858 B1, which was finally revoked during the proceedings. The Claimant (N.V. Nutricia) sought closure of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, while the parties disputed the value of the dispute. The Court set the value of the infringement action at €250,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at €500,000, ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of both proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant.
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
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.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 02/08/2024 concernant R.191 RdP DEMANDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Harris County, TX, 77389, USA - 77389 - H
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp.Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a request by the Appellants (OPPO and OROPE) for expedition of the appeal, specifically seeking shortening of the time period under R.9.3(b) RoP for lodging the Statement of response. The request was filed on the last day of the time periods under R.224.1(b) and R.224.2(b) RoP in an appeal against an order concerning the language of proceedings (R.323 RoP). The Court held that the request had to be dismissed in view of the interests of the respondent and principles of due process, even though this meant the Statement of defence in the first instance proceedings would have to be lodged in the contested language of proceedings.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestle Health
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-14) under reference UPC-001660, N.V. Nutricia appeared in dispute with Nestle Health concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore companies
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2023-12-11) under reference UPC-001665, Ocado Innovation Limited appeared in dispute with Autostore companies concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Panasonic Holding Corporation v.Xiaomi Techniligy Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-08) under reference UPC-001666, Panasonic Holding Corporation appeared in dispute with Xiaomi Techniligy Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
10xGenomics Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc. et al.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-05) under reference UPC-001668, 10xGenomics Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College appeared in dispute with NanoString Technologies Inc. et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Hamburg (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-05) under reference UPC-001667, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited appeared in dispute with Tesla Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Expert e-Commerce GmbH u. a.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-04) under reference UPC-001671, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. appeared in dispute with Expert e-Commerce GmbH u. a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
*** v.PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG, AWMS.R.L., SCHNELL S.P.A.
In this legal proceeding before Milan (IT) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-04) under reference UPC-001670, *** appeared in dispute with PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG, AWMS.R.L., SCHNELL S.P.A. 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.