European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 66 of 73 · 2,185 total
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, relating to LTE mobile communication technology. The court, through presiding judge and rapporteur Dr. Tochtermann, provided directions to the parties regarding claim interpretation requirements under Rule 13(1)(n) RoP, the need for the patent proprietor to anchor revocation counterclaim responses in specific claim features, the strict preclusion regime of Rule 30.2 RoP for later patent amendment requests, and the legal interest requirement for a FRAND license rate determination counterclaim seeking declaratory relief.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231, requested an extension of the deadline to file its rejoinder to the reply to the defence to revocation until 29 July 2024. The applicant argued that the claimants had introduced new prior art documents not previously part of the proceedings, and that a parallel counterclaim for revocation had been filed before the Hamburg local division, requiring additional time to prepare a proper response. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur considered the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity in exercising discretionary powers to modify procedural deadlines.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 490 258 B1, addressing time extension and trade secret protection issues. The plaintiff Dolby International AB, supported by intervener Access Advance LLC, sought an extension of its deadline to respond to the defendants' (multiple HP entities) FRAND objection. The defendants had filed a confidentiality application under R. 262A RoP restricting access to certain parts of their submissions, which initially prevented Dolby from consulting with Access Advance pool employees. The court granted a full extension of the response deadline rather than a partial one limited only to the FRAND-related portions.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This order concerns an application by the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, to keep certain evidence ('Agreement A & B') submitted in the main infringement proceedings against Microsoft Corporation confidential from the defendant and the public, on the grounds that they contain business secrets of licensees. Microsoft objected to the admissibility of the application, arguing that the plaintiff's representative lacked independence under the Code of Conduct because he was also the named inventor, original applicant, and Managing Director of the patent's assignees. The presiding judge rejected Microsoft's objection, holding that independence must be assessed relative to potential harm to the represented party's interests rather than in an absolute sense.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen N.V. a.o.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, against multiple Amgen entities. The parties are competitors in pharmaceutical research, development, manufacture, and supply. The patent in suit is a divisional application ultimately derived from international patent application WO 2007/106585, with the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO having decided on 21 September 2023 that its subject-matter was patentable. The court addressed the degree of certainty required regarding the validity of the patent in suit when deciding on provisional measures, including the likelihood that the EPO opposition division would revoke the patent.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. before the Local Division Hamburg in relation to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, which covers the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) patients with a complement component 5 (C5) inhibitor. The patent, a divisional application, was granted with unitary effect on 1 May 2024 following a Technical Board of Appeal decision upholding its patentability. The defendant had filed an opposition at the EPO shortly after grant. The court addressed the standard for assessing validity in the context of provisional measures, holding that such decisions must consider not only the court's own view of validity but also the likelihood that the EPO opposition division will revoke the patent.
Dolby International AB v.HP PPS Sverige AB, HP International SARL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Deutschland GmbH, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Italy S.r.l., HP Austria GmbH, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Finland Oy, Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP Inc
This procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerns the admissibility of intervention (Streithilfe) by Access Advance LLC in support of plaintiff Dolby International AB against multiple HP entities in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed whether Access Advance, as the administrator of a patent pool into which the patent in suit was contributed, has the requisite legal interest to intervene. The court held that a direct and present interest exists where the intervener manages FRAND obligations and licensing of the portfolio including the patent in suit, and the defendant challenges the adequacy of the intervener's license offers.
Spyra Szymon Spyra v.Respondent
The Defendant in main proceedings, Szymon Spyra, a Polish national and natural person whose professional activity relates to mushroom production, requested court-provided simultaneous interpretation between English and Polish for an upcoming oral hearing in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning EP1993350. Amycel LLC, the Applicant in the main action and patent proprietor, opposed the request, arguing that interpretation costs would become costs of the proceedings and that the Defendant could instead engage an interpreter at his own expense. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request under R. 109.1 RoP for court-provided interpretation but granted the request under R. 109.4 RoP, allowing the Defendant to arrange interpretation at his own expense in consultation with the Registry.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the extension of deadlines for the reply to the infringement action and the response to the counterclaim for revocation in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court established that while R. 9.3(a) RoP empowers the court to extend deadlines, such extensions should be granted cautiously and only in justified exceptional cases. The court held that restricted access to unredacted submissions due to R. 262A RoP confidentiality requests constitutes such an exceptional case, requiring that the party and its representatives have sufficient time to develop a unified strategy addressing both infringement and validity issues.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal by Mala Technologies Ltd. against a decision of the Court of First Instance that rejected Mala's preliminary objection in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 044 709 B1. Mala requested a stay of the first instance revocation proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal declared the stay request inadmissible because Mala's written statement did not constitute a 'reasoned request' under Rule 21.2 RoP, and further rejected the request on its merits, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This order concerns an application by Curio Bioscience Inc. under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that a non-appealed R.262A RoP order by the Court of First Instance restricting access to certain information continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that no new protective order is necessary when the same already-protected information is contained in documents lodged in the appeal. The Court accordingly found Curio's request for a new protective order to be superfluous.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff Tridonic GmbH & Co KG brought an infringement action against CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together under Article 33(3)(a) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
ICPillar LLC appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Paris) requiring it to provide security for legal costs of €400,000 in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 3000239. ICPillar requested suspensive effect of the impugned order or, alternatively, expedition of the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect and no urgency warranting expedition of the proceedings.
Umedwings Netherlands B.V., Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, applied for provisional measures including a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The defendants did not oppose the facts presented. The Court of First Instance denied the application, holding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid in proceedings on the merits due to added matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed.
Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 18/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG Maximilianstr
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 18/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Google Ireland Ltd Gordon House, Barrow Street 4
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Respondent
The plaintiff, an Austrian machine and plant engineering company, sought permission to serve its infringement complaint on a Turkish defendant at the defendant's trade fair stand at the PRS Europe fair in Amsterdam on June 19/20, 2024. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, service may be effected at any location within contracting member states where a company has a permanent or temporary business establishment, and that a trade fair stand qualifies as such when, as is typically the case, deliveries are also promoted there. The court ordered service at the specified trade fair address and directed the plaintiff to initially bear the costs of such service.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi had appealed a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought permission to file additional pleadings to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding Rules 35 and 36 RoP applicable mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings and that Audi's request was sufficiently reasoned.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for information contained in a written submission filed outside the regular deadline regime on May 24, 2024. The plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited) left the decision to the court's discretion but argued that the information may not be confidential since Tesla's sales prices and vehicle production figures are publicly available. The Local Chamber Munich granted the confidentiality protection, finding it credible that the requested information is not publicly accessible.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent 1 838 002. The defendants (Tesla entities) had filed a written submission outside the regular deadline regime and sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the applicable procedural rules for certain commercially sensitive information contained therein. The court granted the confidentiality protection, finding it credible that the requested information was not publicly accessible, and imposed restrictions on the plaintiff's internal access to the designated information.
Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns a request by the defendants (Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited) for confidential treatment of two exhibits (Confidential Exhibit SA-1 and Confidential Exhibit SA-9) filed in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. The claimant (Syngenta Limited) did not formally object to the confidentiality request and provided a list of employees within its group who would have access to the confidential information. The Presiding Judge granted the application, ordering that the information be treated as strictly confidential and not used or disclosed outside the proceedings.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural matters in three parallel patent infringement proceedings before the Local Chamber Mannheim involving European Patent EP 2 568 724 and related patents. The defendants, including multiple Xiaomi entities and other companies, requested an extension of deadlines for their reply submissions, rejoinder to the counterclaim for revocation, and response to the patent amendment request until August 6, 2024. The order also addresses ongoing issues regarding the confidentiality regime, particularly the number of persons authorized to access confidential information on the defendants' side, following the plaintiff's filing of redacted replies and supplementary submissions concerning FRAND-related comparison licenses.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH pursuant to Rule 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) Issued on 12/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Samsung Electronics GmbH Am Kronberger Hang 6, 65824
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Respondent
This is a procedural order in preliminary measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 152 073. The defendants requested postponement of the scheduled oral hearing from 11 July 2024 to 12 July 2024 due to a conflicting hearing at the Düsseldorf Regional Court. After the claimant confirmed its availability for 12 July 2024, the court granted the request and rescheduled the hearing.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of corporate documents. The Defendants sought to compel the Plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited) to disclose four Board of Directors resolutions from entities within the Avago corporate group relating to the authorization of the patent assignment and the granting of powers of attorney. The Defendants raised doubts about the validity of the powers of attorney (Anlagen K29 and K30) and whether the underlying corporate authorizations had been properly granted.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers regarding European patent EP2145848. The dispute originated from an order for preservation of evidence obtained ex parte following Bhagat's exhibition at the ITMA fair in Milan in June 2023. The defendant denied any knowledge of the patent, denied having commercialized infringing products in the patent-protected territory, and reiterated its commitment not to enter the patent-covered market, while the parties engaged in advanced settlement negotiations. The order addresses procedural matters including the correction of the defendant's name in the introductory act and the evaluation of litigation costs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of corporate documents from the plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited). The defendants sought the disclosure of Board of Directors resolutions of Avago group entities referenced in the power of attorney documents (Annexes K29 and K30), arguing doubts existed regarding the validity of the powers of attorney and the authorization for the transfer of the patent-in-suit. The plaintiff opposed the request, contending that the defendants' concerns had shifted from the admissibility of self-dealing transactions to internal corporate decision-making, and that there were no doubts that such decision-making had occurred.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent
Daedalus Prime LLC applied to withdraw its appeal against two of five respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, while continuing the appeal against the remaining three respondents. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the two respondents had a legitimate interest in the appeal being decided because they had been served with the Statement of claim, had responded to the appeal, and would be directly or indirectly affected by the outcome regarding service on affiliated companies.
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Toyota Motor Europe
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld a decision that an opt-out from UPC jurisdiction was invalid because it was not lodged by all proprietors of all national parts of the European patent. Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (Neo) had argued that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for European patent EP 3876490 was valid, but the Court ruled that Article 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge the opt-out application. The appeal was rejected, and the revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe was allowed to proceed before the UPC.
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.