European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 62 of 73 · 2,185 total
Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) that 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 potential irreparable harm from a possible injunction in parallel infringement proceedings and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, finding that Meril's interests did not outweigh Edwards' legitimate interest in having the appeals proceed according to the regular timetable.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.1. Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, 2. S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The applicant, Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG, sought provisional measures against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International to prevent the offering, distribution, and storage of an optical fiber for treating venous diseases ('Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber'), alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1. The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf rejected the application for interim measures without an oral hearing, finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the substantive necessity of provisional measures. The court held that the applicant had not adequately shown why its legal protection诉求 could not be sufficiently addressed through main proceedings.
Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This is an appeal order concerning the referral of an infringement action from the Local Chamber Mannheim to the Central Division Paris. Advanced Bionics sought to have the infringement case transferred to the Central Division to be heard together with a nullity action they had filed against the same patent (EP 4074373). The Court of Appeal held that a connection for related cases under Rule 340 of the Rules of Procedure cannot result in a case being referred to another chamber outside the possibilities provided by Article 33 UPCA, and that Article 33 UPCA does not permit the referral of an infringement action from a local chamber to the central chamber without the parties' consent.
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 04/09/2024 Order no. ORD_45723/2024 APPLICANT 1) A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Applicant) - Via Dei Sette Santi 3 - 50131 - Florence – IT Represented
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This appeal concerned the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2479680, owned by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and exclusively licensed to Sling TV L.L.C. The appellants, AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYlo Freesites Ltd, challenged an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim dated April 5, 2024. The Court of Appeal clarified that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) and Article 71b(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and alleged damage may occur there, including through internet-based activities accessible in that territory.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L v.Respondent
This order concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants had submitted three third-party license agreements with their rejoinder and sought access restrictions exceeding the previously established confidentiality regime. The Local Chamber Mannheim, presided by Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, issued an order with access restrictions corresponding to the existing confidentiality regime, falling short of the defendants' newly requested restrictions for two of the license agreements.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH regarding European Patent No. 3 024 163. The plaintiff sought to extend the lawsuit to include OTECH Germany GmbH as an additional defendant, arguing that OTECH had taken over the smartphone sales activities previously handled by OROPE and had already been found liable for patent infringement by the Mannheim Regional Court in June 2023. The defendants opposed the extension as inadmissible and untimely, contending the plaintiff could and should have sued OTECH directly or filed the extension request much earlier.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
ORDER Of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued on 2/09/2024 APPLICANT: (in the main proceedings, respondent in the procedural application) Valeo Electrification, 14 avenue des Béguines, 95800 Cergy, France, represented by the President Thierry Kalanquin, wit
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE before the Local Chamber Munich. The dispute involves European Patent No. 1 838 002 B1, titled 'Programmable Hybrid Transmitter,' which is in force only in Germany. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants infringe claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12 of the patent, which relate to a transmitter architecture with a baseband processing module, an up-conversion module, and a power amplifier circuit operating in first and second modes. The decision was rendered on August 30, 2024, following an oral hearing held on June 25, 2024.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG v.Ona Patents SL
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns a request for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The plaintiff Ona Patents SL brought the action against multiple Apple entities. The court found the request admissible and granted it to the extent ordered, holding that the existence of a negative fact does not per se exclude the need for confidentiality protection, and that even statements indicating that certain products do not support certain functionalities may qualify as confidential.
UPC Decision UPC-001299 v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against three Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989 B1. The patent relates to technology implemented in devices using the Wi-Fi 6 standard, which the defendants manufacture and distribute. The order was issued by the presiding judge acting as rapporteur under Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure, with the proceedings conducted in German.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on August 27, 2024, concerning a request for a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out five guiding legal principles addressing direct versus indirect patent infringement liability under the 'extended workbench' doctrine, the scope of injunctive relief for indirect infringement, limitations on validity arguments in preliminary proceedings, and temporal urgency requirements. The court found that the contested program library combined with videos and documentation did not meet the standard for direct infringement liability, as alternative programming possibilities meant completion of the patented device could not be established with certainty.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.Respondent
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 27/08/2024 concernant une demande d’audition de témoin à l’audience orale (R.176 et 177 RdP) ABSTRACT : 1. Les questions orales posées au témoin, auteur
Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns an application for provisional measures brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited in relation to European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centers on alleged infringement through the distribution of a patent-infringing composition outside the Contracting States and advertising of a composition under the same name within the Contracting States, creating a risk of first infringement. The Local Division Munich addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the burden of pleading and proof for product claims directed to compositions, the sufficiency of cease-and-desist declarations to eliminate risk of first infringement, the limitation of validity arguments to three in summary proceedings, and the applicable safe harbour period for temporal urgency.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Respondent
This case concerns a request by Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, UEFA, and Kinexon GmbH for security for costs of the appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. before the Court of Appeal. Ballinno had previously been ordered by the Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) to provide €56,000 in security for costs and had its application for provisional measures dismissed. The appeal concerns both the security order and the main order dismissing the provisional measures application. The matter relates to European Patent EP 1 944 067.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH a.o.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 1 612 910 B1, titled 'Monitoring circuit for on-board power supply and power supply control.' The plaintiff, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, alleged that the defendants, Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, infringed the patent through the production and sale of Tesla vehicles manufactured at the Grünheide facility near Berlin. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Hamburg issued its decision on August 26, 2024, addressing procedural matters regarding CMS workflow usage and the scope of partial revocation under the applicable procedural rules.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holdings ApS
Peter Juul Agergaa rd Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Dato: 2024.08.26 13:35:50 +02'00' Peter Juul Agergaa rd Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Dato: 2024.08.26 13:35:50 +02'00' Peter Juul Agergaa rd Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Dato: 2024.08.26 13
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP3065184 (relating to trench processes and structures for back side contact solar cells) applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance was required to assess the admissibility of the application and the merits of the language change request. The order addressed both procedural admissibility of the English-language submission and the substantive balancing of interests between the parties regarding the language of proceedings.
Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns Ericsson's application to amend its claims in preliminary injunction proceedings against ASUSTek, Arvato Netherlands, and Digital River Ireland regarding European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1. The amendment unconditionally limited the original claims, particularly recharacterizing Defendant Arvato from a direct infringer under Article 25(a) UPCA to an intermediary under Article 62(1) UPCA. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Lisbon Local Division) granted the amendment under Rule 263.3 RoP, as the defendants did not oppose the changes and the amendments narrowed the scope of the original claims.
Astellas v.Helios, Riken, Osaka
The Court of First Instance, Central Division (Section Munich), issued an Order regarding an application by Mathys & Squire LLP for access to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP3056563. The underlying revocation action had been terminated by settlement on 23 July 2024. The Court held that, following termination of proceedings by settlement, public access to written pleadings and evidence should normally be granted, subject to redaction of personal data and confidential information.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an applicant's request for review of the Registrar's decision rejecting his application for registration in the list of representatives before the UPC. The applicant claimed to meet the qualification requirements under Article 48(2) of the UPC Agreement, including passing the European qualifying examination and the German patent attorney examination, and argued that his 'Munich Year' training (1997-1998) was equivalent to the 'Law for Patent Attorneys' course at Hagen distance university referenced in Rule 12.1(a)(ii) EPLC Rules. The Registrar had rejected the application, finding that only courses and certificates explicitly listed in Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules could be recognized as qualifying credentials.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, addressing the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the Defendants' (Magna entities) request to classify certain information contained in their Objection and related exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited group of the Applicant's (Valeo Electrification) representatives. The court rejected Valeo's objection that the same information had already been publicly disclosed in Stuttgart Regional Court proceedings in 2023, finding that the information in question was different.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal by several Apple entities against an order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) dated June 18, 2024, which rejected a request to change the language of proceedings to the language in which European Patent EP 2 263 098 was granted. The order addresses a Rule 36 application filed by the respondent Ona Patents SL, seeking to disregard the appellants' reply filed on August 15, 2024, or alternatively to be granted an extension to respond. The court reasoned that under Rule 239.2 RoP, the written procedure in appeal proceedings is concluded when the judge summons the parties to oral hearing, and any Rule 36 request for further submissions must be filed before that date.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation filed an application for discretionary review with the Court of Appeal challenging an order of the Court of First Instance (Central Division Paris) dated 2 July 2024, which had rejected Microsoft's request to declare Suinno's patent infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173 as manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP. The Court of Appeal addressed whether such an order denying a Rule 361 request is admissible for appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP, and whether it qualifies as a case management order requiring issuance by a panel. The standing judge issued the order addressing these procedural questions.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The Aylo companies (AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYLO Freesites Ltd) sought review of a Local Division Mannheim order dated July 22, 2024, which had rejected their request to exclude three in-house counsel of the Dish and Sling companies from a confidentiality ring established under Rule 262A RoP. The Local Division found that the three US-based in-house counsel, who are patent attorneys admitted before the USPTO, were sufficiently reliable to be granted access to confidential information. The Aylo companies requested the Court of Appeal to admit the appeal against this order.
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 21/08/2024 DEMANDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Harris County, TX, 77389, USA - 77389 - Harris County - US Rep
Ballinno B.V. v.Respondent
Ballinno B.V. requested that the Central Division stay revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1 pending the outcome of its appeal against the denial of its provisional measures application by the Local Division Hamburg. The court denied the request, holding that an appeal against the denial of provisional measures does not generally justify a stay of revocation proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP, and that the proceedings must be conducted to allow the final oral hearing at first instance within one year.
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, INTERLUX, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action regarding EP3769722. The Defendants (Meril entities and others) requested a stay of proceedings pending an EPO opposition decision, while the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) opposed the stay. The Court dismissed the request, holding that Rule 118.2(b) RoP applies only during oral procedure, a rapid EPO decision could not be expected, and the UPC could itself decide validity given the pending counterclaims for revocation.
SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, SORMEDICA, UAB, MERIL GMBH, INTERLUX, UAB v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the Defendants (Meril Life Sciences and related entities) for the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) to provide security for legal costs in an infringement action concerning EP3769722. The Defendants argued that security was warranted because the Claimant is based in the United States, outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order potentially difficult. The court dismissed the application, holding that the Claimant's location outside the EU and the lack of experience enforcing UPC orders in the US are not sufficient grounds for ordering security, and that the balance of interests favored the Claimant.
Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect under R.223 RoP in a patent dispute concerning EP 2 713 879. The appellants (Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) appealed a preliminary injunction order issued by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court of Appeal found the first instance order manifestly erroneous insofar as it extended to Ireland, since Ireland had signed but not ratified the UPCA and was therefore not a Contracting Member State.
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.