CHEMISTRY — European UPC Patent Cases
16 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 16 total
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This appeal court ruling addresses a procedural dispute regarding the jurisdiction for determining litigation costs following an initial judgment and subsequent appeals. Rematec sought to have its costs application referred back to the Local Division (GEI) based on prior rulings, but the Appeal Court denied this request. The court clarified that cost determination always originates at the GEI under the Rules of Procedure, regardless of whether the application follows a decision from the Appeal Court. This reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC litigation.
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a legal representative firm, seeking public access to documents from pending infringement proceedings (Boehringer v. Zentiva). The court established strict criteria for such requests, emphasizing that they must be highly specified and not based on relevance criteria set by the applicant. While acknowledging the general interest in transparency, the Court ultimately granted limited access only to specific redacted pleadings, balancing this against the need to protect sensitive commercial information.
Gowling WLG v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited (jointly 'Sumi Agro')
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for public access to case files, specifically concerning the scope and specificity required when requesting documents. Gowling WLG sought access to various pleadings from an appeal proceeding (UPC_CoA_523/2024). The court partially granted the request, allowing access to specified written submissions after redaction of personal data. However, the broad and non-specific nature of the exhibit request was rejected, setting a clear procedural boundary for document disclosure in UPC proceedings.
Docket Navigator v.Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited; Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by the litigation intelligence platform, Docket Navigator, seeking access to confidential written pleadings and evidence in an concluded case. The court ruled that the commercial interest of making these documents available to subscribers does not meet the threshold for protection under Article 45 UPCA. Furthermore, the requirement for representation was deemed essential to safeguard procedural integrity. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining judicial confidentiality unless a legitimate public interest is demonstrated.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues concerning evidence preservation and deadlines under Rule 198.1 EPGVerfO. The respondent sought to nullify an order because they argued that a change in the deadline's starting point constituted an impermissible extension of time. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that judicial discretion allows for adjusting the start date when expert reports are delayed. This ruling confirms the flexibility of procedural rules to ensure fair access to evidence.
Amycel LLC v.-
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application for re-establishment of rights (R.320) filed by the Defendant after missing the deadline to file a Statement of Defence in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, finding that the representative failed to demonstrate 'all due care' despite his illness. This ruling underscores the strict adherence required to procedural deadlines within the UPC framework.
Amycel LLC v.E
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application for re-establishment of rights (R.320). The Defendant sought to reinstate the deadline to file its Statement of Defence due to illness. However, the Court rejected this request, finding that the representative failed to exercise all due care in managing the filing process. This rejection means the infringement action will proceed to a decision by default against the Defendant.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge in a revocation action concerning EP 2 611 800. The original defendant, Virdia Inc., sought substitution by International N&H Denmark ApS because the latter was the true proprietor under Member State law, despite Virdia Inc. being the registered proprietor. The Court accepted this application, confirming that revocation actions must target the actual patent owner. This ruling clarifies the interplay between the 'registered proprietor' and the 'Rule 8.5 proprietor' within UPC proceedings, ensuring that litigation is properly directed against the party with enforceable rights.
Fapa Vital AG v.Valentis Baltic, UAB
This decision addresses the procedural issue of reimbursing court fees when an application for provisional measures is withdrawn. The UPC confirmed that despite a technical gap in the Rules of Procedure (RoP), the provisions governing fee reimbursement should be applied by analogy to applications, not just full actions. Since Fapa Vital AG withdrew its application before the closure of the written procedure, it was awarded 60% of its court fees back.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This order addressed a request by Berggren Oy, acting as a UPC representative firm, to access the full documentation of a concluded Revocation action (UPC 252/2023). The Court affirmed that once proceedings have ended, there is a general public interest in transparency and scrutiny. Consequently, the Court granted access to all written pleadings and evidence, subject only to standard redactions of personal data.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (unnamed)
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of service of process in a UPC infringement action. The court ruled that despite initial difficulties and subsequent refusal by the Defendant to accept documents, Amycel's alternative methods of delivery qualified as 'good service.' This ruling establishes a clear precedent for how parties can successfully effect service when standard procedures fail, provided efficiency and fairness are maintained.
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal challenging a provisional measures order, but ultimately focused on procedural compliance regarding court fees. The Appellant failed to pay the required remainder and penalty fees after being ordered to provide evidence of his small enterprise status. Consequently, the Court issued a decision by default against the Appellant, dismissing the appeal. This case highlights the strict adherence UPC courts maintain to procedural deadlines and financial obligations.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In a procedural ruling, NanoString Technologies Europe Limited successfully opposed President and Fellows of Harvard College's attempt to introduce late-stage written submissions and expert reports in a revocation action concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court upheld the principle of 'front-loaded character' inherent in UPC proceedings. This decision reinforces the requirement for parties to present their full case early, preventing procedural delays and ensuring efficient judicial process.
Amycel LLC v.Szymon Spyra
This procedural order addressed a request for simultaneous interpretation during preliminary injunction proceedings in the UPC. The individual defendant, Szymon Spyra, requested Polish-English interpretation due to language concerns. Although the Court affirmed the right of parties to be heard, it rejected the request for court-funded interpretation (R. 109.1 RoP). Instead, the Defendant was permitted to arrange and pay for his own interpreter (R. 109.4 RoP), emphasizing that costs are generally borne by the party requesting non-official language support.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This UPC decision was a procedural order in the revocation action concerning EP2794928. The court addressed several key issues during an interim conference, including admitting crucial prior art (D46) and setting the financial parameters of the dispute. By confirming the hearing date and establishing the value of the proceedings at EUR 7.5 million, the Court moved the case closer to a substantive judgment.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This UPC decision is a procedural order in a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies against Harvard College concerning EP2794928. The court reinforced the strict 'front-loaded' nature of UPC proceedings, setting clear boundaries for amendments and late submissions. Key decisions included admitting new prior art (D46) into the case and formally establishing the financial value of the dispute at EUR 7.5 million for cost assessment. This order moves the case closer to trial while maintaining strict procedural discipline.
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.