Electronics — European UPC Patent Cases
329 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 11 · 329 total
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd; CUPOWER Europe GmbH
In a complex infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 011 218 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC issued an order suspending the proceedings. This decision was made at the request and agreement of all involved parties, who are currently engaged in parallel settlement discussions. The suspension allows the parties to pursue a negotiated resolution without immediate judicial intervention.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
Huawei initiated infringement proceedings against MediaTek regarding its Dimensity series chips, which are alleged to infringe EP 3 905 840 B1. A key procedural development was the dispute over the disclosure of confidential license agreements and licensee names. The UPC court issued a detailed order granting protective measures under Rule 262A VerfO, strictly limiting access to sensitive information while allowing the infringement case to proceed.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
In this appeal concerning a request for simultaneous interpretation, the UPC Court of Appeal ruled against Yealink's application. The court emphasized that while procedural fairness is important, the adversarial nature of UPC proceedings means such requests must be highly justified. The ruling clarifies that general difficulties faced by non-native speakers or company officials do not automatically mandate court-ordered translation services.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
In this UPC case involving a SEP dispute over Android technology, the respondent sought an extension of the reply period citing complex technical and FRAND defense requirements. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that the existing procedural deadlines are already designed to accommodate the complexities of international patent litigation. This decision reinforces the principle that parties must manage their timelines effectively within the UPC's structured framework.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected Centripetal Limited's request for a final written brief in an ongoing infringement action. The claimant sought to introduce a substantially new functionality reading late in the proceedings. The Panel ruled that allowing such a late submission would violate procedural fairness and compromise the preparation time for the upcoming oral hearing, thereby maintaining the original rejection order.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc.; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUS France S.a.r.l.; ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l.; ASUS Europe B.V.; Ninepoint GmbH
This procedural order addressed a request by multiple defendants (ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH) to extend the time limit for filing their statement of defence. The extension was sought because they required access to an unredacted exhibit related to the claimant's entitlement to assert the patent-in-suit. The court partially granted the request, finding that a short extension was justified to compensate for the delay in accessing minor evidence, while rejecting demands for a full extension.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
HL Display AB initiated an infringement action against Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. concerning patent EP2432351. This procedural order sets the stage for the main trial by rescheduling the oral hearing to August 22, 2025, and formally establishing the financial value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both sides. The parties agreed on all procedural points, including the appointment of a technical judge.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural applications from Barco N.V., which sought leave to change its infringement claim and requested an exchange of further written pleadings against Yealink. The court denied the request for a claim amendment because it broadened the scope without sufficient justification regarding prior diligence. Furthermore, the application for more written exchanges was rejected as no new facts or evidence were introduced by the respondent. This ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements within UPC proceedings concerning claim amendments and the introduction of new arguments.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC case concerning an infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek, the court issued a procedural order focused entirely on protecting trade secrets. The defendant successfully petitioned for strict confidentiality measures regarding sensitive information submitted in their defense pleadings. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, ensuring that proprietary knowledge remains shielded from public view and unauthorized access during litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a request for confidentiality regarding trade secrets arising from license negotiations between Huawei and MediaTek. The court successfully granted an order classifying specific documents as confidential information. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within UPC proceedings by applying existing rules analogously to ensure secrecy.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural ruling, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd sued MediaTek Germany GmbH for patent infringement concerning EP 4 142 215. The court addressed a request by MediaTek to protect confidential information submitted during the proceedings. The UPC granted an order establishing strict confidentiality measures, limiting access to trade secrets to specific parties and counsel. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing public transparency with the protection of sensitive business interests.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed Centripetal Limited's request for a further written pleading. The court stressed the importance of adhering to the Rules of Procedure (RoP), stating that pleadings should not be used to introduce new infringement readings late in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to efficient case management and procedural fairness, particularly regarding timely preparation for oral hearings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by MediaTek Germany GmbH to protect confidential information related to its licensing negotiations with Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court found that these documents constituted trade secrets and issued an order mandating strict confidentiality for all parties involved in the proceedings. This ruling reinforces the protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, even when public disclosure is otherwise expected.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France, S.A.S., Samsung Electronics GmbH
In a significant decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the infringement claim brought by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics while simultaneously granting the counterclaim for revocation regarding Claim 1 of EP 3 110 069 B1. The patent covered traffic control mechanisms in wireless devices, specifically related to Android's Data Saver functionality. This outcome highlights that a successful validity challenge can completely negate an infringement claim within the UPC framework.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addresses several critical administrative and legal issues in a high-stakes solar technology dispute. The court granted comprehensive confidentiality protections for sensitive information submitted by the defendants, ensuring that trade secrets remain protected throughout the litigation process. Crucially, the panel decided to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, avoiding procedural inefficiency while addressing the technical complexity of the patent.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Jinko Solar against LONGi Solar sets the stage for a major patent dispute concerning solar panel technology. The court has scheduled an interim conference and a full oral hearing, confirming that the proceedings will cover both infringement and validity of the patent. This decision is significant as it moves the complex technical dispute into the active litigation phase within the UPC framework.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
This UPC decision confirms the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures concerning EP 1 957 544 B1. DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC., the applicant, successfully withdrew its request with the agreement of Greenchemicals S.R.L., the defendant. The court formally closed the proceedings and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees to the Applicant. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to discontinue an action.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG against Roborock entities concerns a request for deadline extensions related to patent EP 3 030 943. The court granted the extension, allowing defendants more time to file their responses and opposition due to the complexity of the matter and coordination with foreign parties. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines while maintaining process economy.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf decided to consolidate two related actions: an infringement lawsuit brought by TRUMPF against IPG Laser, and a counterclaim for revocation filed by IPG. The court determined that handling both claims simultaneously is procedurally efficient and substantively advantageous, ensuring a unified legal interpretation across both validity and infringement issues. This decision sets a precedent for the strategic management of complex UPC cases involving intertwined infringement and invalidity challenges.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order addressed a penalty application filed by Centripetal Limited against Palo Alto Networks following an attempted inspection (saisie) under UPC authority. The Claimant sought penalties because the Defendant allegedly refused to grant access to monitor its network security systems. However, the Court found that the scope of the original inspection order was limited strictly to what was physically present at the premises. Since the requested technical setup and documentation were not available in the sales office, the Defendant's non-compliance could not constitute a breach, leading to the rejection of the penalty request.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this procedural order, Centripetal Limited sought a preservation of evidence (Saisie) against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., alleging highly probable infringement of EP 3 821 580 related to network security solutions. The applicant requested extensive measures, including real-time monitoring and seizure of digital data at the defendant's premises. Despite the case being referred back by the Court of Appeal (CoA), the Local Division in Mannheim ultimately rejected the application for interim measures.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc.
Nera Innovations Ltd. brought an infringement suit against various Xiaomi entities regarding its patent on wireless power receivers used in smartphones. The defendants counter-sued seeking revocation of the patent. While the court dismissed the revocation counterclaim, it found that the claimant was responsible for bearing the costs associated with the infringement lawsuit. This decision highlights the UPC's detailed scrutiny of procedural matters, such as the scope of auxiliary claims and the definition of prior art.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company
In this procedural case concerning an Anti-anti-suit Injunction (AASI), the court addressed the defendants' refusal to properly acknowledge service. The claimant argued that the defendants were deliberately obstructing the legal process by limiting their representation and refusing formal acknowledgment of the AASI. The Mannheim Local Chamber ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that such procedural tactics are invalid and constitute a breach of professional conduct. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring proper due process and compliance with its orders within the UPC framework.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for a complex UPC case involving TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR against Texas Instruments regarding EP 2 746 957. The court has meticulously outlined numerous technical questions, focusing heavily on claim construction related to processor architecture, interrupt handling, and power management features like 'directly coupled' and 'clock gating.' Both infringement and a counterclaim for revocation will be heard at the upcoming oral hearing.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of an appeal against a security for costs order. Chint appealed the Local Division's ruling, arguing that the order was legally flawed. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal entirely, not on the merits of the security requirement itself, but because the initial case management order did not meet the procedural requirements for appeal under UPC rules. This reinforces strict adherence to internal appellate procedures within the UPC.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion concerning the requirement for a third-party intervenor to provide a financial security deposit in an infringement case. The claimant sought to compel Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., who was involved as a third-party intervener, to post EUR 169,000.00. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that while the intervener is treated like a party for cost purposes, ordering security deposits in such circumstances is not warranted.
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted an extension of time to Palo Alto Networks, Inc., in a patent infringement action brought by Centripetal Ltd. The court recognized that unforeseen global events had created significant logistical obstacles for the defendant's technical team and key personnel. This decision underscores the court's willingness to balance strict adherence to procedural timelines with practical realities faced by parties during exceptional circumstances.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd.
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses jurisdictional objections raised by Motorola entities in a patent infringement case brought by Headwater Research LLC concerning wireless mobile devices. The court dismissed these objections, affirming its jurisdiction under the UPC Agreement. Crucially, the ruling clarifies the scope of Article 33(1)(b) EPCG, limiting its application and confirming that the main infringement proceedings will proceed to trial. This decision provides important guidance on how jurisdictional rules are interpreted in complex multi-defendant cases within the UPC.
Headwater Research LLC v.Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision by the Munich Local Division addresses jurisdictional objections raised in a complex infringement case involving Motorola and its supply chain partners, including Flextronics. The court dismissed the defendants' challenges regarding jurisdiction, allowing the main proceedings to continue. The ruling provides important clarification on how Art. 33 of the UPC Agreement applies when multiple parties are involved, particularly concerning non-infringing entities like logistics providers.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision addresses jurisdictional challenges in a complex infringement case involving multiple defendants (Motorola group and Flextronics). The Munich Local Division upheld its jurisdiction, clarifying the scope of Article 33(1)(b) EPGÜ. By dismissing the objections, the court allowed the main infringement proceedings to proceed against all parties, including the logistics provider, Flextronics International Europe B.V., who was accused of contributing to the infringement.
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.