ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING — European UPC Patent Cases
101 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 4 · 101 total
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion filed by the respondent (Huawei) seeking to suspend an earlier order concerning document access granted by the rapporteur. The court ruled in favor of the respondent, utilizing Rule 335 VerfO to prevent the immediate fulfillment of the access request from undermining the subsequent Panel Review. This highlights the UPC's commitment to ensuring that procedural steps do not prematurely conclude a case before the full judicial review process is complete.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for a rehearing filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against Microsoft Corporation. Suinno argued that the prior decisions were based on fundamental procedural defects, warranting a re-opening of the infringement proceedings. The Court firmly rejected this claim, emphasizing that a rehearing is not a regular appeal but an extraordinary remedy reserved only for truly intolerable procedural flaws. The ruling reinforces the principle of legal certainty in UPC proceedings, making it clear that parties must raise all relevant objections during the initial stages and appeals, rather than attempting to circumvent finality through applications for rehearing.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-Link Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-Link Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal regarding the public access to confidential documents submitted in underlying infringement and revocation proceedings involving Huawei and TP-Link. The court ultimately rejected Huawei's attempt to block document disclosure, upholding the initial order that allowed TP-Link limited access to redacted versions of the files. This ruling reinforces the balance between the public right of access under the EPC and the need to protect sensitive commercial information in UPC litigation.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.European Patent Office (EPO)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict interpretation of unitary patent effect under Regulation 1257/2012. Papst Licensing challenged the EPO's rejection of their request for unitary effect, arguing that historical context and proportionality should allow registration despite the omission of Malta in the original designation. The court firmly rejected this argument, emphasizing a literal reading of Article 3(1). This ruling reinforces the mandatory nature of procedural requirements when seeking unitary protection.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.HMD Global Oy
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim established a comprehensive confidentiality regime for ongoing FRAND negotiations between Huawei and HMD Global. The court recognized that details of confidential license discussions require protection under Rule 262A RoP, extending this shield to future submissions. This order is significant as it provides clear legal certainty regarding the handling of sensitive commercial data within UPC proceedings, balancing the need for transparency with the necessity of protecting proprietary information.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision concerns a cost assessment application arising from an appeal regarding service of process in a patent dispute. The court addressed complex procedural issues, specifically concerning the required representation by legal counsel and the limits on reimbursable costs for purely procedural sub-issues. While the underlying infringement case is not decided here, this ruling provides important guidance on how parties must manage their litigation expenses within the UPC framework.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision, while not addressing patent infringement directly, is a significant procedural ruling concerning cost assessment in appellate proceedings. The court clarified the rules governing representation requirements and the limits of reimbursable costs when appeals focus on narrow procedural issues, such as those related to service of process. This case highlights the detailed administrative framework of the UPC regarding litigation expenses.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its infringement action against multiple defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd. The court formally closed the proceedings based on the mutual agreement of the represented parties. While the core dispute was settled by withdrawal, the claimant secured a partial reimbursement of court fees (EUR 11,400) under specific UPC Rules of Procedure.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et al.
NEC Corporation successfully withdrew its infringement action against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and several other defendants concerning EP 2 645 714. The court formally closed the proceedings based on the parties' mutual agreement. While the core dispute was settled, the ruling confirmed that all involved parties would bear their own costs, though NEC received a partial reimbursement of its court fees.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed requests from Samsung (Defendants) to introduce new evidence and pleadings related to ongoing license negotiations and third-party agreements. The Court dismissed the broad requests for further written submissions and production orders, citing concerns over 'ping-pong' effects and the timing of the evidence. However, recognizing the dynamic nature of FRAND licensing, the Court granted a limited window for parties to submit briefs on new developments before the oral hearing, ensuring that all relevant facts can be considered during the merits phase.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against a cost award granted in favor of Microsoft Corporation. The original dispute involved an infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173, which was ultimately dismissed by default. Although the costs were substantial (€350k), the Court of Appeal ruled that Suinno failed to meet the high threshold required to suspend enforcement of the cost decision. This reinforces the principle that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are proven.
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, aligning with the patent's grant language. The Claimant did not object, and the Court granted the request based on fairness considerations, noting that the parties are internationally active and the technical field uses English predominantly. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC in managing procedural logistics while ensuring fair access to justice for all involved.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In a procedural order, the Local Division in Mannheim rejected Keysight Technologies' request to stay infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 821 580. The defendant sought a stay based on a preliminary EPO opinion suggesting the patent suffered from added matter. However, the UPC court determined that the case was ripe for hearing and that waiting would cause undue delay, preferring to proceed with its own decision-making process.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation; Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.; Xiaomi Inc.; Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.; Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH; Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S.; Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.; Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB; Romania Xiaomi Communication Technology S.R.L.
In a procedural order within the UPC case UPC_CFI_609/2025, UERAN Technology LLC (Claimant) is pursuing infringement against various Xiaomi entities. The court granted a motion filed by one of the defendants, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, to establish a unified deadline regime for all parties involved in the litigation. This ruling streamlines the complex procedural landscape, addressing issues related to service and seasonal delays, which is crucial for efficient UPC case management.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
In this procedural order within the UPC infringement case (UPC_CFI_610/2025), UERAN Technology LLC successfully petitioned for a unified and streamlined timeline. The court granted the request, which aimed to prevent delays caused by incomplete service of process on all defendants, including those in China. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility and party cooperation as key drivers for efficient litigation within the UPC framework.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Nordic AB, Samsung Electronics France SAS, Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the Mannheim Local Division granted requests from all parties to harmonize timelines and service dates in an infringement action concerning EP 2 936 439. The court accepted the agreement to set uniform service dates for all defendants and extended deadlines for filing defenses and replies. This decision underscores the UPC's flexibility in managing proceedings efficiently when parties mutually agree on procedural adjustments.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a critical timing issue in an infringement action concerning EP3407524, specifically regarding the commencement of deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections and Statements of Defense. The Court confirmed that the final confidentiality regime established the procedural starting point, despite subsequent appeals. Recognizing the parties' voluntary cooperation on information access, the Judge-rapporteur granted a strictly limited extension to ensure fair trial rights while maintaining procedural efficiency.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 875 683. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and thus the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the procedural effectiveness of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. The ruling confirms that formal requirements for withdrawal are sufficient, even without explicit proof of power of attorney by a registered UPC representative.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 552 399. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an opt-out had not been validly withdrawn, thereby limiting the Court's jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the formal requirements of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. This ruling confirms that proper registration and adherence to procedural rules are sufficient for withdrawal, even without explicit proof of representation authority.
expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addressed an appeal concerning a cost determination following the revocation of a patent. The claimant, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, challenged the procedural deadlines set out in the Rules of Procedure (VerfO), arguing they conflicted with the European Patent Convention (EPÜ). However, the court rejected the request for admission to appeal, concluding that the legal questions raised had already been settled by prior rulings. This case reinforces the established procedural framework within the UPC and limits the scope for seeking preliminary interpretations from the CJEU on internal UPC procedures.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex application for cost reimbursement following preliminary objection proceedings regarding patent competence. Seoul Viosys sought compensation for costs incurred during the legal dispute over whether the Central or Local Division was competent to hear the revocation action. The Court ruled that while the application was admissible, the recoverable costs were limited because the preliminary objection lacked the technical depth of the main revocation action. Ultimately, a partial award of EUR 11,200 was granted.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the valuation of cases involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and FRAND counterclaims. The Court ruled that a FRAND counterclaim significantly expands the scope and value in dispute beyond the initial infringement action, distinguishing it from a simple defense or a revocation counterclaim. This ruling clarifies that SEPs litigation can involve complex valuations based on licensing terms, even if those fees exceed standard infringement claim values.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion regarding cost determination following an earlier ruling. Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a specific cost allocation, but subsequently withdrew its application due to an administrative error. The court accepted this withdrawal, effectively closing the costs procedure without altering the underlying substantive dispute or the initial cost split.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement action involving InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company group. The defendants successfully argued that the proceedings should be conducted in English, the language of the patent EP3259902, citing fairness and the business language of the involved parties. The court granted this request, setting a precedent for aligning procedural language with the patent's grant language when supported by all relevant parties.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U.
This procedural order addressed an application for public access to the register concerning a closed UPC case (UPC_CFI_181/2024). The Court granted Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB access to specific redacted documents, affirming the general principle that proceedings are open to the public after termination. However, recognizing the need for consistent jurisprudence on confidentiality obligations post-access, the court also granted leave to appeal and suspended the order's effects.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U.
This procedural order addressed an application by a UPC representative firm seeking public access to the file of a concluded revocation action. The Court balanced the general interest in transparency and professional advice against confidentiality concerns, ultimately granting broad access while redacting personal data. The decision highlights the nuanced application of public access rules (R. 262.1(b) RoP) even after proceedings have been terminated by agreement.
HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order addressed an applicant's request for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in a terminated revocation action (EP2661892). The Court of First Instance granted redacted access to most documents, finding that the general interest in transparency outweighed concerns about proceeding integrity after termination. However, the court rejected access to specific exhibits containing non-technical information, emphasizing that file inspection must be limited to technical explanations regarding interpretation and validity.
HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order addressed an applicant's request for public access to confidential written pleadings and evidence in a UPC revocation action. The court affirmed the general principle that proceedings are open to the public, even after termination without a final judgment, provided there is no overriding interest in confidentiality. While granting access to redacted documents, the judge also granted leave to appeal due to the need to establish consistent jurisprudence regarding post-termination file confidentiality.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.
In this procedural matter, Irdeto B.V. sued several DJI entities for patent infringement concerning EP 2 831 787. The defendants requested an extension and harmonization of the time periods for filing their Statement of Defence due to technical complexity. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim partially granted the request, establishing a uniform deadline but rejecting the plea for further delay. This decision underscores the court's focus on procedural efficiency while maintaining strict requirements for demonstrating genuine need for extensions.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision confirmed a settlement reached between Plant-e and Arkyne regarding the infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 137 782. While the core dispute was settled, the Court issued a significant ruling on procedural matters, specifically granting Arkyne a reimbursement of 60% of its court fees. This case highlights the practical application of UPC rules governing settlements and fee refunds.
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.