ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING — European UPC Patent Cases
101 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 4 · 101 total
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France
In this preliminary order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed the valuation of a complex case involving an infringement action against Samsung by ZTE, which included a FRAND counterclaim. The court ruled that basing the value solely on the patent-in-suit is insufficient for assessing the scope of a FRAND license. This decision significantly impacts the financial burden and procedural trajectory of the dispute, setting a preliminary, higher valuation for the overall proceedings.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by The Walt Disney Company group to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court found the application admissible and granted the request, citing fairness and consistency with previous rulings in related cases. This decision is significant as it reinforces the practical application of Article 49(5) UPCA, allowing parties to successfully petition for a language change based on the patent's grant language.
Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd. v.VusionGroup SA
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute concerning the timely filing and recovery of costs in patent litigation. The appellant (Hanshow) sought an extension for its cost claim related to the appeal proceedings against VusionGroup. The court strictly upheld the procedural requirements, ruling that extensions are not available for missed deadlines under R. 151 VerfO. This decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to UPC timelines and clarifies the scope of costs recovery in summary cost proceedings.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the mandatory procedural requirements for imposing periodic penalty payments under R. 354.4 RoP. The court ruled that such an intrusive measure must be decided by a panel, not a single judge. Consequently, the appeal was successful, leading to the setting aside of the initial order and referral back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning costs determination in UPC case UPC_CFI_58/2024, Lionra Technologies Ltd. successfully petitioned for restoration of its previous status after missing a deadline under Rule 151 VerfO. The court accepted the argument that the oversight was an organizational error within the claimant's legal team, which fell outside the party's control. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural deadlines, especially those related to costs procedures, can be restored if the failure is attributable to circumstances beyond the party's reasonable influence.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a penalty payment case stemming from an initial disclosure order in an infringement action involving Philips and Belkin regarding patent EP 2 867 997. The court confirmed the validity of imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance, even if compliance is eventually achieved late. Crucially, it reinforced the obligation to disclose manufacturer prices under Art. 67 EPC, providing clear guidance on procedural enforcement and disclosure requirements in UPC litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed the varying service dates of three related ZTE entities. The court ruled that to ensure procedural fairness and efficiency, all parties agreed to harmonize the deadlines for submitting defenses and revocation counterclaims. This decision establishes a uniform timeline across the group defendants, streamlining the ongoing litigation.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural matters in an appeal concerning penalty payments related to EP 4 238 202. The parties, despite being Danish companies represented by Danish counsel, mutually agreed to change the language of the limited-scope proceedings from Danish to English. The court granted this request, finding it convenient and fair for a quicker adjudication process. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC in adapting procedural rules based on party consent.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Chamber addressed a motion by Xiaomi defendants seeking to exclude arguments made by Nera Innovations Ltd. regarding the patentability of specific dependent claims (Hilfsanträge). The court found that the claimant had sufficiently disclosed the basis for these combined claims in earlier filings and that subsequent elaborations were permissible under procedural rules. This decision reinforces the principle of procedural economy, allowing parties to build upon existing arguments without being strictly limited by initial filing requirements.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against a preliminary procedural order issued in the main infringement case involving Amazon. The core issue was whether the appeal remained viable after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently withdrew the original patent infringement claim. The court determined that because the underlying dispute had been resolved, the appeal itself became moot. This ruling reinforces the principle of procedural efficiency within the UPC system, confirming that appeals must be dismissed when the subject matter they address is no longer legally relevant.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request by Scandit AG seeking reimbursement of court fees after withdrawing its action against Hand Held Products, Inc. The core issue was determining the precise moment the 'oral proceedings' concluded under the relevant Rules of Procedure. The Court clarified that for appeal proceedings, the oral phase ends upon the conclusion of the hearing itself, not when the final judgment is rendered. The court consequently denied Scandit's request for a 20% refund, as the withdrawal was deemed to have occurred after the formal end of the oral proceedings. This ruling provides important clarity on procedural deadlines and definitions within the UPC framework.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH; Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
In a significant preliminary objection ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim rejected arguments raised by Samsung Electronics challenging its jurisdiction and the validity of the patent assignment. The court held that complex issues concerning ownership and temporal scope must be addressed during the main infringement proceedings, not at the preliminary stage. This decision allows the infringement action to proceed, paving the way for a full examination of the merits and the contested legal arguments regarding the opt-out withdrawal.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural application concerning an infringement action, the UPC Central Division addressed Microsoft Corporation's request for a decision by default against it. Although Microsoft failed to provide security for costs as required, the Court exercised its discretion and rejected the application. The ruling emphasizes that while rules allow for default judgments, the court must ensure sufficient evidentiary certainty exists before proceeding, thereby prioritizing substantive fairness over strict procedural adherence.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
In this UPC decision, the Board of Appeal allowed Scandit AG to withdraw its application for an interim injunction against Hand Held Products, Inc., concerning patent EP 3 866 051. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties and permitted under Rule 265.1 VerfO. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to terminate proceedings amicably before a final judgment is reached.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In this procedural application, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought to have the infringement action against them declared manifestly inadmissible due to alleged issues with party representation. The UPC Central Division rejected this request, establishing a key principle that procedural defects like lack of valid representation do not automatically invalidate an action but require the court to grant time for remedy. This decision reinforces the requirement that 'manifest inadmissibility' must be immediately evident from the pleadings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural ruling concerning an infringement action, the UPC addressed the issue of invalid party representation for the claimant. Despite the respondent's request to dismiss the case due to the representative's lack of authority, the court rejected this argument. The panel ruled that while the initial representation was defective, it did not invalidate the entire proceeding. Instead, the claimant was granted 30 days to appoint a new, valid representative who would be required to ratify all prior submissions.
Hanshow Technology Co, Ltd v.VusionGroup SA
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural disputes regarding costs and the validity of an appeal against a cost determination. VusionGroup argued that Hanshow failed to meet formal requirements for filing the appeal (lack of separate grounds/statement) and defaulted on court fees. The Court ruled in favor of Hanshow, confirming that the initial application for admission contained sufficient detail, thus satisfying procedural requirements for appeals concerning costs. This decision clarifies the flexible nature of procedural rules when challenging cost orders within the UPC.
Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
This UPC decision addressed a preliminary objection raised by the defendant against a second counterclaim for revocation. The Court held that Art. 33 (2) UPCA requires an expansive interpretation of lis pendens, applying not only across different divisions but also within the same division. As the patent's validity was already subject to prior proceedings in the same court, the second counterclaim was rejected as inadmissible.
Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed jurisdictional issues concerning multiple actions on the same patent. The court held that if an action for revocation is already pending between the same parties in the same division, a subsequent counterclaim for revocation must be rejected as inadmissible (lis pendens). This decision clarifies the scope of Article 33(2) UPCA, preventing duplicative litigation and ensuring procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC decision addressed an application by the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office seeking access to a case file. The Court ruled that while public access is generally the rule, the paramount interest in maintaining the integrity and impartiality of ongoing proceedings outweighs the applicant's general interest in accessing specific documents. The ruling emphasizes that for purely legal issues, knowledge derived from existing court orders or pending appeals may suffice, negating the need for confidential file inspection.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Hamburg addressed complex bifurcation requests between an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP2792100. Recognizing the efficiency gains from consolidating validity arguments, the court referred the revocation counterclaim to the Central Division Paris. Crucially, the local division decided not to suspend or separate the ongoing infringement proceedings immediately, opting instead to continue them while awaiting the outcome of the parallel revocation action.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Board of Appeal addressed requests to withdraw an infringement suit and associated revocation counterclaims. The Court ruled that such withdrawals are permissible during appellate proceedings as long as no final judgment has become legally binding. This decision provides clarity on the timing constraints for withdrawing claims under Rule 265 VerfO and confirms the procedural effect of withdrawal, including the refund of court fees.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters concerning the withdrawal of a patent infringement claim and associated revocation counterclaims. The Court of Appeal confirmed that parties can withdraw their claims during the appellate phase, provided no final judgment has become legally binding. By allowing the withdrawal, the court terminated the main proceedings and granted Avago a refund of 60% of its appeal court fees. This ruling provides clarity on the timing and procedural requirements for withdrawing actions within the UPC system.
Bentley Motors Limited v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Bentley Motors Limited sought to withdraw a revocation action against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399. The court granted the request, emphasizing that Rule 265(1) of the RoP does not mandate express consent from the respondent, provided they are given an opportunity to comment and do not object. This decision provides clarity on procedural requirements for withdrawing actions within the UPC framework.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an appeal. DISH and Sling sought full reimbursement due to alleged errors in procedural instructions, but the Court ultimately granted only partial relief. The ruling confirms that even when appealing, parties are entitled to 60% fee reimbursement upon withdrawal, provided they meet the formal requirements under the Rules of Procedure.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, the Rapporteur addressed a motion by Xiaomi entities seeking to summarily dismiss the claimant's request for amending the patent claims. The court emphasized the principle of procedural economy, holding that complex substantive issues concerning the validity and scope of patent amendments should not be decided prematurely. Instead, these matters are reserved for the main proceedings, ensuring a comprehensive review by the full judicial panel.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural application concerning security for costs, the UPC Central Division dismissed Microsoft Corporation's request to increase the required financial guarantee against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. Although Microsoft argued that increased litigation complexity and the respondent's admitted financial strain warranted higher security, the Court found no new circumstances justifying an amendment. This decision reinforces the principle that initial assessments of recoverable costs, based on the claimant's objective interest at filing, remain relevant even as proceedings progress.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC decision concerns the mutual withdrawal of an infringement action by ICPillar LLC and a corresponding revocation counterclaim filed by ARM entities regarding patent EP3000239. The parties agreed to settle their dispute outside the UPC, leading to the closure of the proceedings. While both withdrawals were permitted, the Court adjusted the court fee reimbursement rate from 60% to 40%, citing the advanced stage of the litigation and the work already performed by the Court.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This procedural order addressed Microsoft Corporation's request for leave to appeal a prior decision concerning claim amendments and damages reduction in an infringement action. The Court of First Instance ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing that granting such leave requires demonstrating either differing interpretations among UPC judges or a concrete interest served by the appeal. This ruling reinforces the principle of efficiency within the UPC proceedings.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This UPC case involved a procedural application by Scandit AG requesting the court to mandate simultaneous interpretation for its upcoming oral hearing, switching from German to English. The Berichterstatter ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that since Scandit had filed its initial pleadings in German, it bore the responsibility of managing language requirements. Practitioners should note that courts are reluctant to impose mandatory translation services if a party has already chosen or could have chosen the procedural language.
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.