European UPC Patent Cases
2,185 decisions indexed
Page 70 of 73 · 2,185 total
AUGUST DEBOUZY v.Respondent
Martin Lionel applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for public access to several Registry documents and communications related to revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_263/2023) between BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The respondents did not submit any comments on the application. The judge-rapporteur held that Rule 262(1)(b) covers only written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties, and does not extend to Registry communications, formal-checks notifications, or court orders on procedural matters such as stays.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural requests by the plaintiff Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 646 825. The plaintiff requested that the interim hearing scheduled for March 14, 2024 be held in person rather than by video conference, and that the court provide simultaneous interpretation from German to English. The presiding judge denied both requests, holding that switching from video to in-person requires demonstrated unconditional necessity, and that the plaintiff must resolve the tension created by its own choice of German as the procedural language for an English-granted patent with international parties.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-03-04) under reference UPC-001572, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This document is uploaded for technical (CMS ) reasons only, in order to close the workflow. Margot Elsa KOKKE Digitally signed by Margot Elsa KOKKE Date: 2024.12.13 17:26:00 +01'00'
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.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order concerns a review request filed by Novawell against an ex parte saisie order granted to C-Kore Systems Limited, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 265 793 relating to subsea apparatus and testing. The Court examined whether Novawell's review request was filed within the 30-day time limit under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure, addressing when the 'execution of the measures' begins for purposes of calculating that deadline. The Court also considered the criteria for granting the ex parte order, the distinction between preserving evidence and inspection procedures, and the conformity of the saisie carried out by an expert assisted by a bailiff with French national law.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_495/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 28/02/2024 APPLICANT ICPillar LLC 4265 San Felipe Street, Suite 1100 77027 - Houston, Texas - US Represented by Lionel Martin RELEVANT OTHER PARTIES ARM Limited 110 Fulbou
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/02/2024 DEMANDEUR : 1) Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd 65-16, Sandan-ro 163beon-gil, Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do - KR Représenté par Pauline Debré DÉFENDEUR :
Meril Italy srl v.Respondent
This case concerns a generic application (App_7364/2024) lodged within a revocation action (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3646 825. The claimant, Meril Italy srl, requested permission to exchange further written pleadings, arguing that the defendant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, introduced new defence arguments in its rejoinder regarding the priority issue and the alleged scope of the patent. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi considered the request under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, which confers discretionary powers to the judge-rapporteur to allow further exchange of written pleadings upon a reasoned request.
Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH - Raimund-Beck-Straße 1 - 527 v.BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH – Eibachstraße 15 - 57413, Jochen Bühling, KRIEGER MES Rechtsanwälte PartmbB.
ORDER
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The appellants (NanoString Technologies entities) appealed against an order in proceedings initiated by the respondents (10x Genomics and Harvard College). The order addresses key legal principles including the examination of formal requirements under Rule 206.2 RoP, the interpretation of patent claims under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient degree of certainty required for provisional measures under Rule 211.2 RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding preliminary measures for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on December 16, 2023, all three NanoString entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on February 4, 2024. The applicants (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the proceedings be stayed due to the insolvency, and the respondents (NanoString) agreed. The Court of Appeal held that, under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, the proceedings did not need to be stayed because the insolvency occurred only after the close of oral hearings and the case was ready for decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This order concerns two appeals filed by AIM Sport Development AG against a decision of the Local Division Helsinki that dismissed AIM's requests for a preliminary injunction, evidentiary measures, and an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 295 663, on the ground that the patent had been opted out of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal identified a potential procedural defect: AIM lodged its Statement of appeal on 20 December 2023, within two months of service, whereas the applicable Rule 224.1(b) RoP requires appeals against orders under Articles 60 and 62 UPCA to be lodged within 15 days of service. The Court invited both parties to submit written comments on whether the non-compliance should lead to inadmissibility of the appeal.
NanoString Technologies Inc.; NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH; NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.President and Fellows of Harvard College; 10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The applicants, 10x Genomics and Harvard College, sought provisional measures against NanoString Technologies entities. The order addresses key legal principles regarding formal requirements for provisional measure applications, patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient certainty required under Rule 211.2 RoP. The decision establishes important guidance on burden of proof allocation between applicants and defendants in provisional measure proceedings.
Sanofi v.Amgen, Regeneron
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2024-02-24) under reference UPC-001587, Sanofi appeared in dispute with Amgen, Regeneron concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Inc. , Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Softw
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2207270. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) UPCA, to hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and FRAND licensing together rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The court reasoned that joint hearing promotes efficiency, allows for a unified interpretation by the same panel, and is justified given the court's early operational stage and the part-time availability of some panel members.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. , OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license under Art. 33(3)(a) EPGÜ. The court further directed the Reporting Judge to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Netgear for shortening of time limits (acceleration of appeal proceedings) under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed an order of the Local Chamber Munich that granted Huawei's request to extend its claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321) in the main proceedings, which originally concerned only EP 3611989. The Court of Appeal rejected the application for acceleration, holding that filing on the last day of the applicable time limits did not justify shortening, given the respondent's interests and principles of due process, even though this could result in the statement of defense being filed in the first instance proceedings before the appeal is decided.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH a. o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-21) under reference UPC-001601, FUJIFILM Corporation appeared in dispute with Kodak GmbH a. o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_454/2023) brought by Tandem Diabetes Care entities regarding European patent EP 2 196 231, to extend the deadline for filing its defence to revocation. Roche argued that a pending preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction would not be decided before the current deadline expired, making it unreasonable to finalize submissions that might become unnecessary. The Court, presided by Judge Paolo Catallozzi, considered the request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which grants discretionary powers to extend time periods upon reasoned request.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an action for declaration of non-infringement filed by Tandem Diabetes Care entities against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 196 231. While Roche's preliminary objection on jurisdiction was pending, Roche filed a procedural application seeking an extension of the deadline to file its defence. The Court examined Roche's request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, weighing arguments relating to the pending preliminary objection, parallel revocation proceedings, and the potential for a stay under Rule 76(3).
Plant-e B.V., Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action (UPC_CFI_239/2023) brought by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. against Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo) regarding European Patent No. EP2137782. The defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation, raising the question under Article 33(3) UPCA of whether to bifurcate or jointly hear the infringement and revocation proceedings. Both parties jointly requested a joint hearing, and the panel decided to proceed with both matters jointly for reasons of procedural expediency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. against a cost order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings initiated by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 763 331 relating to a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses. After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist declaration that Edwards accepted, the first-instance court found the interim measures moot, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Meril to bear the costs up to €200,000. Meril appealed seeking to shift the costs to Edwards and requested suspensive effect of the appeal.
Panasonic Holding Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
1 Local division Mannheim UPC_CFI_210/2023 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 February 2024 here: Application for production of documents and protection of confidential information acc. to R. 190/191, 262, 262A RoP Patent at issue Patent
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.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-13) under reference UPC-001610, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against three Dexcom entities before the Paris Local Division. The order addresses service difficulties, particularly with Dexcom International Limited in Ireland, and aligns the deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence for all three defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur approved the parties' agreed reasonable extension, setting the starting point for all defendants at 15/01/2024, with the Statement of Defence expected by 15/04/2024.
SAS LASER COMPONENTS v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-12) under reference UPC-001614, SAS LASER COMPONENTS appeared in dispute with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
ICPillar LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP3000239, brought an infringement action against twelve defendants of the ARM group of companies. When standard service methods failed—particularly delivery to Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. in Poland—the Claimant sought authorization under Rule 275.1 of the Rules of Procedure for alternative methods of service. The Court authorized alternative service only to the extent that the original methods had failed, rejecting the proposed method that merely replicated the already-attempted registered letter approach, and clarified the application of the ten-day delay rule under the Hague Service Convention.
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.