Chemical — European UPC Patent Cases
26 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 26 total
REEL International v.Fives ECL
In this UPC revocation action, REEL International challenged EP 1 740 740 held by Fives ECL. Fives ECL attempted to dismiss the case based on lack of standing and res judicata stemming from national German court decisions. The Central Division rejected these preliminary objections, confirming that such defenses do not preclude the UPC's jurisdiction. This decision ensures the substantive merits of the patent revocation claim will be heard.
Topsoe A/S v.HyGear B.V.
In this procedural matter, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by HyGear B.V. to change the language of proceedings from German to English for EP3802413. The court applied the fairness criteria under Art. 49(5) UPCA, considering factors like the predominant language in the hydrogen technology field and the practical disadvantages faced by non-German speaking parties. Ultimately, the request was granted, emphasizing that efficient communication is crucial in accelerated UPC proceedings.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
In a significant revocation action, UPM-Kymmene Oyj successfully challenged European patent EP 2 611 800 against International N&H Denmark ApS. The UPC Central Division ruled that the patent was invalid and revoked it entirely across all participating member states. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of subject matter scope under the UPC Agreement, particularly concerning claims that may extend beyond the original application's content.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a.o.
Topsoe A/S sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and two other entities in anticipation of a main infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 802 413 B1, which covers hydrogen production via steam methane reforming. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements under the UPC Agreement for obtaining evidence preservation before commencing full litigation.
3V Sigma S.p.A v.A.G.A. S.r.l.
This UPC decision concerns a request for provisional measures aimed at protecting evidence related to alleged patent infringement in the cosmetic industry. 3V Sigma sought an order to secure technical and commercial documentation regarding a competing UV filter, MFSorb 513. Although the initial protective measure was granted against ACEF Srl, the subsequent appeal/request for review by AGA and ACEF was fully dismissed by the Milan Local Division. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements for applicants seeking ex parte evidence protection.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC concerns a procedural matter related to an application for inspection and evidence gathering concerning EP 3 802 413 B1. The court did not rule on the merits but instead corrected factual errors in the initial filing, specifically regarding the precise addresses of the respondent's various locations. This highlights the importance of meticulous detail when submitting procedural applications to the UPC.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH
Topsoe A/S sought provisional measures, specifically an order for inspection and evidence gathering at the premises of SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, ahead of a potential infringement lawsuit. The patent in question covers hydrogen production using steam methane reforming with an electrically heated catalyst bed. Although Topsoe successfully initiated the process, the Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for inspection and evidence preservation. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain preliminary investigative measures within the UPC framework.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et al.
This UPC decision confirms the withdrawal of an infringement action initiated by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC against several chemical companies. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties, indicating a likely settlement outside of court. Crucially, the Court also addressed procedural matters, granting confidentiality to the sensitive annexes and ordering a significant partial reimbursement of the claimant's legal costs.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et al.
In this procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance granted the withdrawal of an infringement action brought by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC against several chemical companies. The withdrawal was based on a mutual agreement between the parties, indicating that the dispute was resolved outside of court. Additionally, the court addressed requests for confidentiality regarding settlement details and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the initial court fees to the Claimant.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the composition of a confidentiality club in an ongoing infringement/revocation action involving Solvay Specialty Polymers and Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical. The Court confirmed the initial order, upholding the inclusion of non-employee experts from the claimant's economic unit. The ruling clarifies that access to confidential information is not strictly limited to direct employees, significantly broadening who can be included for effective litigation.
STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
In a significant decision regarding claim construction, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected an application for provisional measures concerning an electropolishing medium. The dispute hinged on whether a specific emulsion met the patent's requirement for a 'non-conductive fluid.' The court ruled that by analyzing the surrounding liquid as a whole, the conductivity exceeded the claimed limit, thus finding no infringement. This case underscores the critical importance of precise claim interpretation when dealing with complex chemical formulations like emulsions in UPC litigation.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
In this procedural matter, TCL EUROPE SAS sought a two-week extension to respond to the Defence to Revocation and Application to Amend filed by Corning Incorporated in relation to EP 3 296 274. The Claimant argued that extensive technical testing related to prior art attacks necessitated more time. However, the UPC Court rejected the request, emphasizing that while complexity exists, the RoP provides sufficient time for patent cases, and the burden of proving 'special circumstances' justifying an extension rests heavily on the requesting party.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd.; Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Benia New Material Technology Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich separated an infringement action involving Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. against four Chinese defendants. The separation was necessitated by differing service timelines for the defendants, allowing proceedings to continue against two parties while awaiting service on the remaining two. This decision highlights the court's flexibility in managing complex multi-defendant cases under the UPC framework.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V.; Troy Chemie GmbH; Azelis Group N.V.; Azelis SA; Azelis Netherlands B.V.; Azelis Benelux
In a recent procedural order, the UPC granted a stay to an infringement action involving AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC and several defendants including Troy Chemical Company B.V. The parties mutually requested the pause of proceedings until February 13, 2026. This decision highlights the court's flexibility in managing complex litigation timelines, allowing both claimant and defendant time to prepare or resolve underlying issues before proceeding with the infringement claims.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addresses an appeal concerning provisional measures related to patent EP 4 249 647. The core issue was OTEC's request for further written pleadings after STEROS introduced new experimental evidence during the appellate phase. Citing principles of due process, the court allowed OTEC a limited time frame to address these newly presented facts, keeping the main appeal proceedings alive.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed OTEC's request to suspend the effect of an injunction granted by the Court of First Instance against Steros. OTEC sought suspension based on alleged manifest errors and violations of its right to be heard in the initial proceedings. The Court ultimately rejected this application, affirming that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are met. This ruling reinforces the high threshold required for parties seeking to halt enforcement measures while their appeal is pending.
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. successfully obtained a provisional injunction against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH regarding the use of its electrolytic medium in electropolishing processes (EP 4 249 647 B1). The Hamburg Local Division upheld the cease and desist order, imposing significant recurring penalty payments for non-compliance. This case highlights the practical application of provisional measures within the UPC framework, emphasizing the balance between protecting patent rights and considering market interests.
3V SIGMA S.P.A. v.AZIENDA CHIMICA E FARMACEUTICA S.P.A. - A.C.E.F. S.P.A. and AZIENDA CHIMICA E FARMACEUTICA S.R.L. - A.C.E.F. S.R.L.
In a significant procedural ruling, 3V Sigma successfully obtained an ex parte preservation of evidence order against ACEF. The case centers on two patents covering triazine compounds and cosmetic compositions used as UV filters. By securing access to samples and technical documentation related to the competitor's product MFSorb 513, 3V Sigma can build a strong evidentiary foundation for future infringement claims. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for pre-trial evidence gathering.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order from the Munich Local Division addresses complex issues arising in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 215 288. The court corrected an earlier decision regarding party substitution in the counterclaim and deferred a ruling on an application to bar proceedings (RoP362). By reserving the decision until after the main hearing, the UPC ensures that procedural rulings do not disrupt the planned unified trial schedule for both infringement and validity issues.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order in the Fujifilm v. Kodak infringement case sets the stage for a complex oral hearing at the UPC Mannheim Local Division. The court identified significant legal hurdles, particularly concerning retroactivity and the choice of law (UPCA vs. national law) for infringing acts that occurred before the UPCA's entry into force. Furthermore, the claimant must clarify precisely which countries are subject to the sought remedies. These points underscore the high level of complexity involved in cross-border patent litigation under the new UPC framework.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
In a significant decision concerning lithographic printing technology, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf revoked EP 3 594 009 B1 following a counterclaim for revocation. The court also dismissed the infringement action brought by Fujifilm against Kodak entities. This case highlights the critical interplay between jurisdiction, claim construction principles (favoring broad interpretation), and the strict requirements for amending claims under Art. 123(2) EPC. For patent practitioners, this decision underscores that even if an infringement suit is filed, a successful revocation counterclaim can lead to complete invalidation of the patent.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order in the Fujifilm v. Kodak case sets the stage for a complex oral hearing concerning patent infringement of EP 3 511 174. The court focused heavily on jurisdictional and legal questions, particularly how to treat alleged infringing acts that occurred before the UPC Agreement entered into force. Furthermore, detailed technical clarification is required from both parties regarding specific product embodiments (SONORA XTRA-3) and the scope of remedies sought across various territories.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional question: whether the Unified Patent Court can hear an independent claim for damages following a successful national infringement judgment. The court affirmed that since the damage claim is rooted in patent infringement, it falls under the scope of Article 32(1)(a) EPC. This ruling provides significant clarity and predictability for patentees seeking to enforce their rights across the UPC system.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
TIRU successfully obtained provisional measures from the UPC Local Division of Paris to investigate alleged infringement by MAGUIN SAS regarding a waste incineration patent (EP3178578). The court authorized physical seizure of documents, digital data preservation, and site inspections at VALINEA ENERGIE's facilities. This decision is crucial for TIRU as it allows them to gather necessary evidence before initiating the main infringement proceedings under the UPC.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a request for confidentiality protection regarding sensitive recipe information in an ongoing infringement case. The court balanced the need for trade secret protection against the parties' right to conduct their defense. Ultimately, while granting strict confidentiality measures, the Court rejected the respondent's attempt to severely restrict access, allowing all named claimants to view the protected documents.
I.G.B. S.r.l. v.Unilever France
In a procedural ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed Unilever France's attempt to introduce new claims concerning financial guarantees and execution timelines for injunction, recall, and destruction measures. Unilever argued these were necessary due to new facts regarding packaging use. However, the Court found that these modifications merely complemented previously raised accessory demands and did not fundamentally alter the scope of the infringement dispute. The request for authorization under Rule 263 ROP was therefore dismissed.
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.