ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING — European UPC Patent Cases
101 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 4 · 101 total
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the time limit for lodging an appeal against an order from the Court of First Instance (CFI). The appellant, AIM Sport Development AG, argued that the CFI's own 'Information about appeal' stated a two-month deadline, even though the strict rule (R.224.1(b) RoP) mandated only 15 days for certain orders. Applying the principle of legitimate expectations, the Court of Appeal sided with AIM, finding the appeal admissible. This ruling highlights the importance of procedural fairness and how courts must interpret rules when CFI guidance creates a reasonable expectation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a case concerning patent infringement, the UPC Local Division issued a final order regarding confidentiality of business information. The court determined that projected sales results submitted by Tesla were indeed trade secrets, necessitating strict access limitations. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it reinforces the robust protection available for commercially sensitive data within ongoing UPC litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a case concerning patent infringement, the UPC Local Division issued a final order regarding confidentiality. The court ruled that certain documents containing projected sales results constituted protected trade secrets under EU law. This ruling significantly restricts who can access these sensitive business forecasts during the ongoing litigation, emphasizing the protection of commercial interests within the UPC framework.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appellate decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning claim expansion in ongoing infringement litigation. Netgear challenged the lower court's determination of the response deadline for Huawei after EP 3678321 was added to the case. The Appellate Court affirmed the principle that defendants must receive full defense rights, but corrected the start date of the period, ensuring procedural fairness and clarity. This ruling provides important guidance on how courts must manage deadlines when expanding patent claims mid-litigation.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural challenge concerning the timeliness of an appeal lodged by AIM Sport Development AG against a CFI decision that dismissed its actions. The dispute centers on whether the 15-day deadline set out in R.224.1(b) RoP applies to appeals seeking provisional measures (like preliminary injunctions under Art. 62 UPCA). While AIM sought to overturn the dismissal based on competence, the Court has paused proceedings to determine if the appeal itself is procedurally admissible due to a missed deadline.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion filed by Netgear seeking to accelerate the appellate proceedings against Huawei. Netgear argued that strict deadlines would prevent them from presenting their defense in time, given the urgency of the underlying case. However, the Board of Appeal rejected this request, emphasizing the importance of maintaining an orderly and fair procedure for all parties involved. The ruling serves as a reminder that procedural fairness often outweighs claims of urgent necessity in UPC litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Inc., Odiporo GmbH, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L
In a case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation against various Xiaomi entities, the Local Court of Mannheim issued an order regarding procedural matters. The court decided to consolidate the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation (including FRAND licensing) into a single proceeding. This strategic decision aims to enhance judicial efficiency by ensuring a unified legal interpretation across both claims.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC decision concerns an application for acceleration of appeal proceedings filed by Netgear against a ruling that allowed the expansion of claims in the main infringement case. The Board of Appeal ultimately denied the request, emphasizing procedural fairness and proportionality. The court determined that granting the accelerated timeline would prejudice Huawei's right to prepare a proper defense response within the established legal framework.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division The Hague decided to proceed with both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning patent EP2137782. This decision was made to ensure procedural expediency and allow for a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel. This ruling highlights the court's preference for integrated proceedings when parties agree, avoiding potential delays associated with bifurcating cases.
ICPillar LLC v.Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Hyperglance limited, SVF Holdco, Apical Limited (and other defendants)
This procedural order addressed the service of a Statement of Claim in an infringement action involving ICPillar LLC and various ARM group entities. The Court granted authorization for alternative service methods specifically for the Polish defendant, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o., due to delivery issues. However, the request for alternative service concerning UK defendants was dismissed because the Hague Service Convention process was still considered reasonable and in progress.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
This UPC decision addresses the procedural language of a patent infringement case involving Huawei and Netgear. Although the official procedure language is German, the court utilized its discretionary powers to permit the oral hearings and interim proceedings to be conducted in English. This ruling emphasizes the balance between strict procedural rules and the practical need for efficiency and cost-saving in complex international litigation.
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.