Automotive — European UPC Patent Cases
48 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 48 total
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This UPC CFI case involved an application for rectification filed by Magna against Valeo following a previous injunction order concerning electric motor generators and gearbox assemblies used in BMW vehicles. Magna sought to amend the scope of the permitted use exceptions and clarify the geographical reach of related litigation actions. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected these requests, confirming that the original Order was legally sound and contained no clerical errors or obvious slips.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application for rectification filed by Magna against Valeo following a prior injunction concerning electric motor generators and related parts used in BMW vehicles. Magna sought to amend the scope of the permitted use exceptions and clarify the geographical reach of a parallel vindication action. The Court ultimately dismissed these requests, upholding the original order's wording and finding that no 'obvious slip' or clerical error existed.
Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
In a significant procedural ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to an order issued by the CFI. The dispute involved Magna International and Valeo Electrification regarding patent EP 3 320 602, which covers technology used in BMW models. Magna successfully argued that the original injunction contained a clear error—an 'obvious slip'—by omitting a specific model from its exceptions. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to correct procedural errors and prioritize maintaining the status quo when such errors threaten fundamental fairness.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH
In a critical case concerning motorcycle tires, Pirelli Tyre successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC Local Division in Milan against Tianjin Kingtyre and Kingtyre Deutschland. Facing an imminent trade fair where infringing products were set to be displayed, Pirelli secured an order for the seizure and delivery of contested goods. This ruling underscores the UPC's ability to provide rapid interim relief in complex infringement cases while maintaining procedural safeguards.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre sought provisional measures against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and CCPIT ahead of a major trade show, alleging that the respondent was selling infringing motorcycle tyres. The UPC Court of First Instance granted seizure and delivery of the contested products and promotional material to prevent further commercialization during the event. This decision allows Pirelli to secure evidence while reserving the final determination of infringement for the merits phase.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL
In this provisional measures case concerning an automotive motor patent (EP 3 320 604 B1), the UPC Local Division granted a preliminary injunction to Valeo Electrification against Magna PT and its affiliates. The injunction was conditional, allowing the Defendants to continue supplying specific models to their customer BMW if they provided a security deposit of €500,000. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach in balancing patent holder rights with the operational needs of defendants facing existing supply chain commitments.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Central Division granted a decision by default in favor of Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) against ITCCiCo Spain S.L., leading to the revocation of EP 2 796 333. The patent, which covers speed detection and warning systems for vehicles, was invalidated based on lack of novelty and inventive step. This case underscores the strict procedural requirements within the UPC, where failure by a defendant to respond promptly can result in an adverse judgment.
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 addressed a request by Valeo Electrification to lift an existing confidentiality order concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Court upheld the protection of confidential information, classifying specific documents submitted by the Defendants (Magna entities) as trade secrets under Article 58 UPCA. Consequently, the Applicant's request to remove these restrictions was dismissed, reinforcing the importance of maintaining confidentiality in UPC proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal order addressed a procedural request by Volkswagen AG to submit additional written pleadings in an appeal concerning security for costs. The court found the request sufficiently reasoned, allowing Volkswagen to correct facts presented by Network System Technologies LLC. (NST). This decision highlights the flexibility of the UPC's rules regarding the exchange of evidence and arguments during appellate proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request from Volkswagen AG seeking permission to submit additional written pleadings in an appeal concerning security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC. The court confirmed that under the Rules of Procedure, parties can lodge reasoned requests to exchange further submissions if necessary to correct facts or clarify issues. By allowing this request, the Court ensured all relevant factual arguments could be presented before closing the written phase.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request regarding the exchange of written pleadings during an appeal concerning security for costs. Audi AG successfully argued that it needed to correct certain facts submitted by NST, and the Court granted permission for additional submissions. This ruling reinforces the flexibility within the UPC's Rules of Procedure (RoP), allowing parties to refine their arguments even late in the written phase if a reasoned request is made.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal order addresses a procedural motion in an appeal concerning security for costs. Volkswagen AG successfully requested permission to submit additional written pleadings, arguing the need to correct facts presented by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The court granted this request, allowing both parties to exchange further statements before closing the written procedure. This highlights the UPC's willingness to maintain a dynamic procedural environment to ensure all relevant factual and legal points are addressed.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the exchange of written pleadings during an appeal concerning security for costs. Audi AG successfully petitioned the court to allow it to submit additional facts and evidence, arguing that the initial proceedings contained factual errors by the opposing party, NST. The court granted this request, allowing both parties further time to refine their arguments before closing the written phase.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a request for protective measures concerning confidential business information submitted by Tesla entities. The court found that specific operational and financial data provided by the defendants—such as average selling prices and vehicle allocation details—were genuinely sensitive and not publicly available. This decision reinforces the importance of Rule 262A EPG VerfO, providing a crucial mechanism for parties to safeguard proprietary information during complex patent litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a request for protective measures concerning confidential business information submitted by Tesla entities in relation to an ongoing patent dispute involving Avago Technologies. The court found that specific operational and financial data provided by Tesla—such as average selling prices and internal inventory numbers—were genuinely non-public and required protection under Rule 262A EPG VerfO. This decision is significant for practitioners, reinforcing the UPC's commitment to balancing transparency with the need to protect sensitive trade secrets during litigation.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings. The court found that the arguments presented were too vague and lacked sufficient substantiation to justify shortening any deadlines under R.9.3(b). This order highlights the strict requirements parties must meet when seeking procedural acceleration within the UPC framework.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Audi AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Audi argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The court found that the request lacked sufficient specificity and substantiation, upholding procedural norms and protecting the interests of the respondent, NST.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Audi AG sought to accelerate the appeal process against an earlier dismissal of its security for costs application. The court rejected this request, finding that it was too vague and lacked sufficient justification to warrant shortening deadlines. This highlights the strict requirements for requesting expedited proceedings within the UPC framework.
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.