Automotive — European UPC Patent Cases
48 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 48 total
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This UPC decision addressed preliminary objections regarding the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division in a complex infringement case involving multiple Bosch entities. The Court clarified that for Article 33(1)(b) AJUB to apply, the commercial link must exist among all defendants, not necessarily individually with the anchoring defendant. Crucially, 'same infringement' only requires violation of the same patent, not identical products. While rejecting the request to dismiss the case, the panel granted permission for an appeal, signaling a significant legal development on jurisdictional scope.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd et autres sociétés du groupe Bosch
In this preliminary ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed objections raised by various Bosch entities challenging its internal jurisdiction over a patent infringement action brought by Valeo. Bosch argued that because the alleged infringing products did not apply to all defendants, the case should be transferred to another division (Düsseldorf). The court rejected these objections, clarifying that Article 33.1 b/ AJUB only requires the infringement to relate to the same patent among multiple defendants, regardless of product identity across all parties. This ruling clears the path for the merits phase of the infringement claim.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd.
This interim conference decision in the Pirelli v. Sichuan Yuanxing case sets the stage for a complex patent dispute involving tire technology. The court addressed procedural issues, including the admissibility of evidence and preliminary objections from the defendant. Crucially, the parties agreed to conduct an on-site technical examination of seized product samples during the upcoming oral hearing. This decision highlights the UPC's practical approach to evidence gathering in infringement cases.
Valeo Systemes D’essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS et autres (ROBERT BOSCH GROUP)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of an appeal against a preliminary order issued by the Trial Division Judge-Rapporteur. The case, involving Valeo and Robert Bosch concerning EP 2671766, centered on whether the specific type of procedural ruling fell under the scope of appeal defined in the UPC Agreement (AJUB). The Court ultimately ruled that the appeal was admissible, providing important guidance on how parties can challenge non-final, preliminary orders within the UPC framework.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH S.A; ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A; ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD; BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE appealed a decision from the UPC Central Division (Paris) concerning an infringement action against various Robert Bosch entities regarding patent EP 2671766. The appeal challenges the jurisdiction and procedural language set by the initial division. This Order of Procedure confirms that the Court of Appeal will first assess the admissibility of VALEO's appeal before examining its merits, a standard procedure for managing complex UPC litigation. This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to appellate procedures within the Unified Patent Court framework.
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France
IMC Créations sued Mul-T-Lock France alleging infringement of its European patent EP4153830 concerning vehicle security locks. The case involved complex arguments regarding the modified unit patent and nullity counterclaims. Although IMC Créations was held responsible for damages resulting from the infringement, the court ultimately dismissed its claims related to the Swiss jurisdiction and did not grant a permanent injunction against Mul-T-Lock.
Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyages v.Robert Bosch Doo Bograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This UPC procedural order addressed a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction in an infringement case involving Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyages against various Robert Bosch entities. The court rejected the argument that the Central Division had universal competence due to cross-border infringements and instead applied Article 33(1)(b) of the UPC Agreement, transferring the case to the local division of Düsseldorf. This decision highlights the strict application of jurisdictional rules when defendants are domiciled within contracting states.
FAST IP, LLC v.Skechers USA Deutschland GmbH; Skechers S.a.r.l; Skechers U.S.A., Inc.; Skechers EDC SPRL; Skechers USA Italia Srl; Skechers USA France SAS (collectively, Skechers)
This procedural decision addressed an application to change the language of proceedings in a UPC infringement case from German to English. The Court sided with the defendants, Skechers, who argued that their global corporate structure and the patent's original grant language favored English. The ruling reinforces the principle that the defendant's position is decisive when assessing fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA, even if the claimant initially chose a different official language.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Cybex Retail GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's application to change its infringement claims regarding a swivel locking device for strollers (EP 1 905 615). The Claimant sought to modify claim language, primarily by altering how components were allocated between the 'seat' and the 'base' of the wheel bearing assembly. While the court found that the proposed extension of equivalence arguments was not fundamentally changing the targeted structure, it ultimately denied the application for leave to change the claim.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for confidentiality regarding technical data and measurement reports in an infringement case involving traffic signaling systems. The court confirmed that certain non-obvious product properties qualify as trade secrets under Article 58 EPC, provided they are kept confidential. While the court granted protection to specific documents submitted by Strabag, it rejected broader requests from both Swarco (the claimant) and Chainzone (the assisting party), setting clear boundaries on information disclosure in UPC proceedings.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH, Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement case involving Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. and two Kingtyre entities regarding patent EP2519412. A settlement was reached between Pirelli and one defendant, Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH, leading the Court to confirm this agreement under Rule 365 RoP. Crucially, the Court allowed the litigation to continue against the second defendant, Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd., while also granting a partial reimbursement of court fees for the claimant.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber co. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for re-establishment of rights filed by Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber co. Ltd., following an initial seizure order issued by Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. The core dispute centered on whether procedural notification failures constituted a cause outside the respondent's control, thereby allowing them to reset missed deadlines. The Court ultimately rejected the application, holding that the refusal of the recipient to accept the documents fulfilled the legal requirements for service under Italian law. This ruling reinforces the strict adherence required to UPC procedural timelines.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG; Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH; Renault S.A.S.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, based on the patent's grant language. The court ruled in favor of the defendants (Renault), establishing that the defendant's position must prevail when balancing interests under Art. 49(5) UPCA. This reinforces the principle that while fairness is key, the claimant's initial choice and the procedural context heavily influence the outcome.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge ('Gegenvorstellung') brought by Knaus Tabbert against the Appeal Court's rejection of its request for interim relief. The court ruled that such a counter-submission is inadmissible if it only disputes the reasoning of the rejecting order, not the merits itself. This ruling reinforces strict procedural boundaries within the UPC system regarding appeals and motions for provisional measures.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.
In this case management order, the UPC Milan Local Division addressed a joint request for a stay of proceedings involving two patents. The Court ruled that when all parties agree to a stay under Rule 295(d), the court is obligated to grant it, emphasizing party autonomy (Art 43 UPCA). Crucially, the decision allowed for a partial stay, halting proceedings related to EP '117 while permitting the infringement and revocation actions concerning EP '364 to proceed normally. This highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation involving multiple patents.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses an application for interim relief concerning patent infringement. The court ruled that the requirement for a security deposit to ensure enforcement is not automatic and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the lower court. The ruling emphasizes that parties should raise all relevant facts, including financial vulnerabilities, during the initial proceedings rather than relying solely on them in an appeal.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This Düsseldorf Local Division decision addresses complex issues in a patent infringement and revocation case involving vehicle frames made from foam resin. The court provided key guidance on interpreting 'product-by-process' claims, emphasizing that the technical properties of the resulting product are paramount to claim scope. Additionally, the ruling clarifies the jurisdictional approach to compensation claims, noting that while the UPC can handle financial damages, claimants must address varying national requirements for such compensation.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application by Dainese S.p.A. to limit its claims in an infringement action, specifically dropping one patent (EP'117) while maintaining another (EP'364). The court ruled that since the limitation was unconditional and only involved reducing the scope of the claim rather than withdrawing the entire case, Rule 263(3) RoP applied. This confirms that patentees can unilaterally limit their claims without penalty under this rule, ensuring procedural flexibility while deferring cost allocation until the main proceedings.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.; Alpinestars Research S.p.A.; Motocard Bike S.l.
Dainese S.p.A. sought leave to limit its infringement claims from two patents (EP4072364 and EP3498117) after an adverse EPO decision restricted the scope of one patent. The UPC Milan Local Division granted this request unconditionally, confirming that a limitation of claim is a valid form of case amendment under Rule 263(3) RoP. This ruling clarifies that when a claimant limits its claims rather than withdrawing the entire action, the proceedings continue against the defendant regarding the remaining patents, and cost allocation is deferred until the final judgment.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Sweden) AB, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS (Danemark) ApS, EJNER HESSEL A/S
This procedural order addressed POSCO's request to access confidential pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against the XPENG group. POSCO sought access to inform its parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO regarding patent EP3290200, which is central to both actions. The Court ultimately granted limited access, recognizing that claim interpretation must be consistent across both infringement and revocation proceedings, while maintaining confidentiality for sensitive technical exhibits.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Omnia Retail S.r.l., Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy, Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K., Motocard Bike S.l.
In this procedural order, Dainese S.p.A. successfully requested an extension of deadlines related to its infringement action against several defendants. The UPC Court recognized the need for coordination between the ongoing litigation and parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO concerning EP3498117. By granting the extension, the court prioritized procedural fairness and efficiency over simply staying the case, ensuring all parties have adequate time to examine the EPO's decisions.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL (collectively 'Magna')
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, Valeo Electrification successfully withdrew its infringement action against Magna. The withdrawal was permitted because the main proceedings were still subject to a pending appeal and Magna provided explicit consent for the case to be closed. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to terminate litigation before a final judgment is rendered.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL (and associated entities)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted Valeo Electrification to withdraw its infringement action against Magna. The withdrawal was facilitated by Magna's explicit consent and the absence of a final judgment in the underlying main proceedings due to an ongoing appeal. This decision highlights how parties can resolve complex litigation early through mutual agreement, even when provisional measures were previously granted.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In the case of Valeo Electrification v. Magna PT entities, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Local Division formally closed proceedings after both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants subsequently withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This decision highlights the importance of party autonomy in UPC litigation, allowing cases to be terminated amicably even when complex patent disputes are involved.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In a procedural decision concerning EP 3 320 604 B1, the UPC Local Division allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Valeo Electrification withdrew its patent infringement action against Magna entities, while the Defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and a license. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to the closure of complex IP litigation without a substantive ruling on validity or infringement.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request by Valeo Electrification to extend filing deadlines in an infringement and revocation action against Magna. The Court rejected the extension request, confirming that statutory time limits are sufficient unless exceptional circumstances are proven. This decision reinforces the strict adherence to procedural timelines within the UPC framework.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
This appeal before the UPC Court of Appeal concerned an application for suspensive effect regarding a preliminary injunction issued by the CFI against Magna. The core dispute centered on whether a specific BMW model, the 2 Series Gran Coupé, was correctly exempted from the injunction's scope. The Court of Appeal sided with Magna, finding that the exclusion was arbitrary and disproportionate given the evidence of production plans for this vehicle. Consequently, the court suspended the effect of the injunction specifically for the 2 Series Gran Coupé model.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC case involved Avago seeking provisional measures to halt Realtek's US litigation and the enforcement of German injunctions, arguing that these actions violated fundamental European justice rights. The court initially considered the request but later issued a correction to its order. Crucially, the final ruling allowed the US-based legal proceedings to continue regarding claims other than those related to the alleged license breach, keeping the matter pending.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the protection of confidential information within a running infringement case (UPC_CFI_460/2024). The Court granted the Claimant's request to classify specific exhibits from the Defendants' Statement of Defence as confidential. This ruling is crucial for managing sensitive trade secrets in parallel proceedings, allowing litigation to proceed while maintaining strict control over proprietary data.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This appeal concerns a dispute over the scope of a preliminary injunction issued against Magna by the CFI, specifically regarding whether the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was correctly exempted from supply obligations. Magna sought suspensive effect to prevent enforcement on this specific model while its appeal proceeded. The Court of Appeal Standing Judge granted an interim order suspending the relevant part of the injunction, recognizing Magna’s interest in maintaining the status quo until a full panel decision is reached.
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.