Electronics — European UPC Patent Cases
4 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 4 total
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Inventronics GmbH
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against Inventronics GmbH regarding European Patent No. 2 011 218 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before completion of the written procedure, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court accepted the withdrawal, reduced the value of the dispute to EUR 300,000, and ordered a partial refund of court fees in the amount of EUR 9,500 to the plaintiff.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures (injunction) against ASUSTeK and Arvato in the Milan Local Division, related to ongoing main proceedings concerning EP 3 076 673 B1 (a video coding/HEVC patent). The application was filed after the main proceedings on the merits had commenced, with Ericsson citing delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were already in their final stages.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This case concerns an action for revocation of European Patent EP 2 643 717 ('Farbmischende Sammeloptik'), relating to a color and light mixing collecting optic for full-color pixels in outdoor display panels, spotlights, or signaling. The plaintiff and intervener (Chainzone Technology) sought full revocation on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, inadmissible extension, and insufficient disclosure. During the proceedings, the defendant (SWARCO) limited the patent before the EPO by deleting the word 'insbesondere' from claim 1. The Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent in its limited form, ordering the plaintiff and intervener to bear the costs.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by IPG Laser to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 951 625. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 50% refund of the court fees (€21,145) to IPG Laser, rejecting the request for a full refund.
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.