ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, INSTRUMENTS — European UPC Patent Cases
3 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 3 total
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Nederland N.V.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving Avago Technologies and various Renault entities. The Court granted the request, citing fairness grounds, the international nature of the parties, and the predominant use of English in the relevant technical field. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC regarding procedural language when supported by objective circumstances.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a dispute over the scope of patent amendments during revocation proceedings. The respondent (Carrier Corporation) sought to amend the patent to include claims beyond those challenged by the claimant (BITZER Electronics A/S). The panel ultimately ruled that these non-challenged amendments were inadmissible. This reinforces the principle that defensive measures in UPC litigation must remain proportional and confined to the scope of the initial dispute.
Martin Lionel v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request by an individual seeking public access to various documents related to a patent revocation action. The judge-rapporteur rejected the application, clarifying the scope of document disclosure under the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The ruling emphasizes that 'written pleadings and evidence' must be lodged by parties to qualify for Rule 262(1)(b) access, excluding internal Registry communications or court orders.
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.