Electronics — European UPC Patent Cases
329 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 11 · 329 total
Emporia UK and Ireland Limited v.Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd.
In this significant UPC decision, the court granted a revocation action against an LED patent (EP 3 926 698 B1) due to added subject-matter. While some claims were already invalidated in parallel proceedings, the UPC confirmed the invalidity of several remaining dependent claims. The ruling provides important guidance on how partial revocation affects dependent claims and addresses procedural hurdles related to amendments following complex litigation.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH
This Düsseldorf Local Division decision addresses a complex FRAND dispute involving Dolby and Beko concerning smart TV codecs. The court provided key guidance on establishing a dominant position in the context of standard-essential patents, linking it to consumer expectations for universal compatibility. Crucially, the ruling reinforced the strict procedural requirements of the Huawei v. ZTE negotiation framework, clarifying that failure by the alleged infringer to make an initial licensing offer ends the FRAND assessment immediately.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict procedural requirements governing ex parte orders for evidence preservation. Ecovacs sought an inspection order against Roborock, but the Local Division revoked it due to incomplete disclosure by Ecovacs regarding Roborock's direct market activities. The Court of Appeal upheld this revocation, stressing that applicants have a heightened duty under R. 192.3 RoP to disclose all material facts influencing the court’s decision, regardless of whether those facts are later introduced in the main action.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision addressed an infringement suit brought by TRUMPF against IPG regarding a patent covering laser beam generation using multi-clad fibers. Although the court ultimately dismissed the main infringement claim, it issued a significant finding that the defendant is liable for further damages resulting from the alleged infringing activities. The counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was also rejected, leaving the patent valid but with complex financial implications.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated
In this complex international patent dispute, Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement action against Qualcomm Incorporated concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399, which relates to integrated circuits and transaction methods. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement claim because the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its allegations during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the stringent burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is insufficient when a party bears the burden of proving infringement.
BFexaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court dismissed the infringement claim against NVIDIA regarding EP 3 743 812. The patent relates to dynamic resource allocation in heterogeneous computing systems. While the main infringement suit failed, the defendant's counterclaim for revocation was not addressed because the condition precedent (the failure of the infringement action) was met. This case reinforces key procedural principles regarding claim construction and contingent counterclaims within the UPC framework.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a significant ruling concerning network technology patents, the Local Division Munich dismissed the infringement claim brought by Network System Technologies LLC against Qualcomm Incorporated. The court found that the Claimant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding patent infringement during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the stringent evidentiary requirements placed on claimants in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is insufficient without conclusive factual substantiation.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In this complex international patent dispute involving Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC over EP 1 875 683, the UPC Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its allegations of infringement during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the high burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is sufficient when a claimant fails to present conclusive evidence.
BFexaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation
In this complex UPC case involving BFexaQC AG against NVIDIA Corporation, the court addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 743 812, which covers dynamic resource allocation in heterogeneous computing systems. Beyond the merits, the decision provided important procedural guidance regarding the non-binding nature of applicant statements during the grant phase and the conditions under which a conditional counterclaim for revocation can be handled.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent EP 1 552 669 in France and Germany. The revocation followed the dismissal of the infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC against Qualcomm subsidiaries. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively prove its case, allowing the Defendants' counterclaim for revocation to succeed. This decision underscores the high burden of proof required in UPC infringement proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a complex international patent dispute involving Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC, the UPC Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 1 875 683. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its claims during the oral hearing, despite arguments regarding evidence production under Rule 190 RoP. This decision highlights the high burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, particularly when asserting complex technical infringement.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated
In this significant UPC decision, Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement suit against Qualcomm regarding EP 1 552 669. However, the Defendants successfully mounted a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich ultimately revoked the patent in France and Germany, dismissing the infringement action entirely. This case underscores the high burden of proof required by claimants to conclusively demonstrate patent infringement before the UPC.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This Court of Appeal decision addresses a complex provisional measures application concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought an injunction against Dreame International and Eurep for infringing EP 3 119 235 with its multi-functional hairdryers. While the court granted the requested provisional measures within the UPC Territory, it simultaneously referred key jurisdictional questions regarding Spain and the role of the authorized representative (Eurep) to the CJEU. This highlights the Court's careful balancing act between immediate injunctive relief and ensuring legal certainty across different EU jurisdictions.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited and Eurep GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involves a complex dispute over provisional measures concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought to prevent infringement by Dreame International and Eurep, who marketed products through websites. The court found jurisdictional questions regarding the role of EU-based intermediaries (Eurep) in facilitating third-state infringement were too complex for it to resolve alone. Consequently, the Court referred key legal questions to the CJEU while simultaneously issuing provisional measures against certain defendants within the UPC Territory.
beMatrix NV. v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a rectification of an earlier provisional measures order in the dispute between beMatrix NV. and Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. The original application sought preliminary injunctions against alleged infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1, which covers display modules for temporary exhibition stands. The Court ultimately corrected a clerical error in its prior ruling, ensuring that the Defendant was properly ordered to cease and desist from infringing the patent. This highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting administrative or drafting errors.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim found IPG Laser GmbH liable for infringing TRUMPF Laser UK Limited's patent covering advanced fiber laser technology with adjustable beam profiles (YLS-AMB series). The court granted an injunction and established liability for damages dating back to December 2021. While the infringement claim was successful, the respondent's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH
In a case involving ETRI against Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and associated defendants, the UPC Court of First Instance permitted the withdrawal of the infringement action. This decision followed a settlement reached between the parties, leading to the closure of the proceedings. While all parties agreed to bear their own costs, the court specifically ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the initial court fees to ETRI.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this UPC decision, the Court addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 686 683 B1, which covers developer replenishing systems. While the core claims were dismissed, the ruling provided significant guidance on procedural fairness. The court held that defendants who use their websites to mislead the public about patent status may be compelled by Article 80 UPCA to publish the operative parts of the judgment themselves.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises related to network security technology. Centripetal Limited, the patent holder, appealed a rejection of its Saisie Order against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. The court ultimately rejected the appeal, finding that Centripetal had failed to meet procedural requirements regarding the defense and amendment of the original order. This case highlights the strict procedural standards required when seeking interim measures like evidence preservation within the UPC framework.
InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS v.Amazon.com, Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance in Mannheim addressed a request by Amazon to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court ruled in favor of Amazon, citing principles of fairness and efficiency under Article 49(5) UPCA. This decision highlights the practical application of balancing procedural rights against the needs of international parties in complex patent litigation.
Nagravision Sàrl v.Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Pinterest and Nagravision. The Court granted the request to change the language from German to English, aligning it with the language of the patent grant and the common working language of the multinational Defendants. This ruling emphasizes that operational efficiency and internal coordination needs of large corporate defendants can override the local language preference of a claimant in UPC proceedings.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
This UPC decision involved a dual action: an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. Despite the complexity of the technology—which relates to advanced location estimation using positioning-assisting signals—both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim were ultimately dismissed by the Düsseldorf Local Division. The ruling provided important procedural guidance, emphasizing that registration status is prioritized in certain UPC proceedings, while also clarifying the requirements for establishing direct infringement.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
This UPC CFI order addressed procedural disputes between ZTE and Samsung concerning an infringement action related to EP 3 905 730. The court closed the written procedure but deferred a decision on whether ZTE's late submissions were relevant, requiring analysis after the oral hearing. Crucially, while rejecting Samsung’s request for further written pleadings, the court granted provisional access to confidential license agreement information under strict confidentiality terms (R. 262A RoP), balancing procedural fairness with trade secret protection.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a significant revocation proceeding, the UPC Central Division ruled against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, declaring European patent EP 2 671 173 revoked. The patent covered an innovative system for location-aware internet searching while walking. The Court found that the claims lacked inventive step over existing prior art, leading to the complete invalidation of the patent. This decision underscores the rigorous standards applied by the UPC in assessing novelty and inventiveness.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
In a case involving ETRI against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and several related entities, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf permitted the withdrawal of an infringement action concerning EP 3258692. The parties reached a settlement agreement before the written procedure concluded. Consequently, the court closed the proceedings and ordered the Claimant to receive a partial reimbursement of the Court fees.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application for leave to appeal against a cost determination in a prior infringement action involving Microsoft and Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. The court upheld the CFI's award of EUR 350,000.00 in costs to Microsoft. The ruling emphasizes the strict proportionality requirements under Article 69(1) UPCA when reviewing cost assessments.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd
In a case involving Huawei and several mobile technology manufacturers, the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Mannheim permitted the claimant to withdraw its infringement action. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to settle or abandon litigation by mutual consent. The court formally closed the proceedings while granting the claimant reimbursement for a portion of the incurred court fees.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the production of evidence in an alleged patent infringement case concerning MPEG-4/AAC standards. The Defendant sought access to historical licensing agreements, arguing they were necessary for assessing FRAND compliance and potential exhaustion of rights. Conversely, the Claimant resisted disclosure of its own current license agreement due to confidentiality obligations. The Court partially sided with both parties, rejecting the broad disclosure requests while compelling the submission of a specific, highly confidential contract.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In a significant decision for cybersecurity IP, the UPC Local Division Mannheim revoked European Patent EP 3 652 914 B1. The patent, which covered methods for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows using machine learning and threat logs, was invalidated due to lack of inventive step in its amended claims. This revocation led directly to the dismissal of the concurrent infringement action brought by Centripetal Ltd. against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., highlighting the critical interplay between validity challenges and enforcement actions within the UPC framework.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures and a preliminary injunction against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The case, filed under R. 206 RoP, targeted counterfeit printer cartridges (types 924 and 937) sold by both German and Chinese defendants. Crucially, the court also imposed significant penalty payments on the Chinese defendant to enforce compliance with the provisional measures, demonstrating a strong enforcement stance in UPC proceedings.
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.