Electronics — European UPC Patent Cases
329 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 11 · 329 total
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision addresses jurisdictional objections in a complex patent infringement case involving Headwater Research LLC against various Motorola entities and logistics providers. The court dismissed the defendants' objections, affirming its jurisdiction under Articles 33(1)(a) and (b) of the UPC Agreement. Crucially, the ruling clarifies the scope of Article 33(1)(b), stating it is an extension of jurisdiction but does not automatically permit unified claims against all parties without specific conditions. The main infringement proceedings will now proceed to a substantive hearing.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This decision addresses a critical procedural dispute regarding the protection of confidential information in UPC proceedings involving potential antitrust conflicts. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing data from disclosure to defendants. The Panel ruled that while such regimes are theoretically possible under EU law principles, the Claimant failed to meet the strict burden of proof required by the UPC for demonstrating a concrete risk of anticompetitive harm. Consequently, the application was dismissed, but leave to appeal was granted, setting up an important precedent for future cases balancing IP protection and competition concerns.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the scope of confidentiality protection in patent litigation. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' regime for sensitive licensing data, arguing it was necessary to prevent antitrust conflicts. The Panel rejected this request, emphasizing that such exceptional restrictions require a high burden of proof showing concrete risks of anticompetitive harm. Although the application for review was dismissed, leave to appeal was granted, setting up a potential precedent on balancing confidentiality and competition law within the UPC.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC appellate case involved ILME appealing a rejection of its opposition against an infringement suit brought by PHOENIX regarding EP 3 602 692. However, before the appeal could be decided on merits, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to the withdrawal and termination of the original infringement proceedings. The UPC Appeals Board subsequently dismissed ILME's appeal under Rule 360 because the underlying dispute had become moot.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect filed by NUC Electronics against a judgment ordering it to disclose confidential business information regarding the origin and distribution of its products. The court ruled that the disclosure obligation is necessary for effective IP enforcement under EU directives. Consequently, NUC's request to suspend the appeal was dismissed, meaning the original order compelling information disclosure remains in force.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 602 692, the claimant (Phoenix Contact) voluntarily withdrew its infringement suit against the respondents. The court subsequently allowed the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation as well. This decision highlights that voluntary withdrawals can lead to the termination of proceedings and trigger specific rules regarding the refund of court fees, providing a clear procedural path for parties seeking an amicable resolution.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG to withdraw its infringement claim against Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH. This withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties as part of an out-of-court settlement. Although the merits were not decided, the court issued a detailed cost allocation, refunding fees to both sides based on the timing of the withdrawals.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case concerning EP 2 839 403 addressed a dispute over whether the Claimant's introduction of new technical details and product examples constituted an impermissible amendment to the infringement action. The Court determined that providing further illustrative examples of existing functionalities, even on newly released models, does not change the nature or scope of the original dispute. Consequently, while the request to exclude these submissions was postponed for a full panel review, all other procedural requests by the Defendants were dismissed.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
In this UPC procedural order, the court allowed Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd. to join the ongoing infringement action as an assisting party (Streithilfe). This move is significant as it allows a third party to participate in supporting or challenging the claims between Swarco Futurit and Yunex GmbH. The decision primarily addresses procedural matters, including requests for cost security deposits, keeping the core patent dispute active but with expanded participation.
CENTRIPETAL LIMITED v.PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the delicate balance required when granting orders for preserving evidence and inspecting premises. The court clarified that while the standard of proof is lower in these summary proceedings than in a full infringement action, applicants must demonstrate plausibility rather than mere speculation to prevent 'fishing expeditions.' Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes that any such measures must be necessary for effective patent enforcement while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision concerns an application by Chainzone Technology to suspend the effect of a judgment against it, which had found it liable for patent infringement. The appeal was filed following a local court ruling that largely favored Swarco, the patent holder. The Board ultimately rejected Chainzone's request for suspension, citing insufficient substantiation in its legal arguments regarding the interpretation of the patent claim.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addressed a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to allow further written pleadings in an infringement action against Texas Instruments. The Claimant argued that new and complex technical points raised by the Defendants required additional time for submission. However, the UPC Panel dismissed this review application, emphasizing strict formal requirements for procedural requests under R. 36 RoP. This decision reinforces the court's adherence to established case law regarding the necessary level of substantiation in managing litigation timelines.
Jingao Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect and expedition filed by Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. against Jingao Solar Co., Ltd. The appeal concerned a security for costs order issued by the Court of First Instance in the main infringement/revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 787 541. The Court ultimately rejected Chint's request, upholding the original timeline and requiring Chint to provide the stipulated security.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
Dolby International AB sought provisional measures at the UPC to prevent Roku, Inc. from pursuing Anti-Suit or Anti-Enforcement Injunctions in US courts related to the HEVC standard patent EP 3 490 258. The court ultimately denied Dolby's request for these protective measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate sufficient urgency and risk; otherwise, they may be liable for costs.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku, Inc.
In this UPC decision, Sun Patent Trust sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) against Roku, Inc., aiming to prevent Roku from pursuing related anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunctions in US courts. The court ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate a genuine risk of irreparable harm; here, the court found that the requested AASI was likely futile and risked prejudicing the claimant's rights without proper preliminary steps.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
In a preliminary procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted a strict confidentiality order protecting financial information submitted by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. The court found that the Defendant failed to prove the public availability of this sensitive data, justifying the protection under UPCA rules. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to safeguarding proprietary business information during litigation.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order addresses a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to amend its infringement action to include the AM67x product as an attacked embodiment. The court recognized the complexity of balancing the claimant's need to address new market activity against the defendants' right to prepare their defense. Instead of making a final ruling immediately, the judge postponed the decision until the oral hearing while granting the defendants time to respond in substance to the proposed amendment.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division Mannheim addressed the claimant's request for additional written submissions regarding AVS Class 0. The Court found that while repeated requests are usually inadmissible, it exceptionally allowed limited supplementation on this specific technical point to ensure all arguments were considered before the oral hearing. This decision highlights the court's balance between procedural efficiency and ensuring a fair presentation of complex technical issues.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd's request to classify specific documents and information shared during infringement proceedings against MediaTek Germany GmbH as confidential trade secrets. The court affirmed that parties can successfully invoke Art. 58 EPC and Rule 262A VerfO to protect sensitive business information from public disclosure. This decision reinforces the robust protection of trade secrets within UPC litigation, mandating confidentiality not only for public access but also for all participants involved in the case.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a case concerning the infringement of EP 4 142 215, Huawei Technologies sought protective measures for its confidential business secrets against MediaTek. The UPC Local Division Munich ruled favorably, classifying specific documents as confidential and imposing strict duties of secrecy on all participants in the proceedings. This decision reinforces the robust protection available under the UPC framework for trade secrets during litigation, ensuring that sensitive information is not disclosed to third parties or the public.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. v.Barco NV
Yealink filed an application seeking to rectify a previous Final Order concerning legal costs in the UPC case against Barco. Yealink argued that the original order was flawed regarding the cost award amount. However, the Local Division Brussels dismissed the rectification request, holding that the initial decision was legally sound and consistent. This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of R. 353 RoP, emphasizing that procedural corrections must be limited to clear errors rather than re-evaluations of legal reasoning.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division case involved a complex situation where an infringement action and associated revocation counterclaims were partially withdrawn due to one defendant's insolvency. The Court allowed the withdrawal against the insolvent party (Digital River) but maintained the proceedings against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato). Crucially, the court applied principles of fairness and equity, ruling that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs related to these withdrawals, despite conflicting claims.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division decision addressed procedural matters concerning an ongoing infringement and revocation action involving Ericsson. Due to Digital River's insolvency, Ericsson sought to withdraw its claim against that defendant, which was subsequently allowed. The Court ruled on the allocation of costs for these withdrawal proceedings, finding that equity dictated both parties bear their own expenses, despite initial disagreement.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company. The Court granted the request to change the language from German to English, citing fairness and considering all relevant circumstances under Art. 49(5) UPCA. The ruling reinforces that the defendant's position is a decisive factor when weighing interests in such procedural matters.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company Limited / The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Disney and InterDigital VC Holdings. The Defendants successfully argued for changing the court's language from German to English, aligning with the patent grant language. The Court upheld this request, citing principles that prioritize the defendant's position when balancing interests are equal, underscoring the practical importance of business context in UPC procedural matters.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
In a complex infringement and revocation action, the UPC Milan Local Division issued a crucial procedural order regarding confidentiality. The court adopted an 'external eyes only' regime for highly sensitive documents, allowing access to unredacted information only by designated external counsel, experts, and specific individuals from each party. This decision provides a clear framework for managing trade secrets while ensuring fair trial rights in high-stakes patent litigation.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division order addresses a critical procedural dispute regarding the handling of highly confidential information in an infringement and revocation action. The Court established a comprehensive 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime, balancing the parties' rights to fair trial and full disclosure. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it provides clear guidance on how courts manage sensitive trade secrets within complex UPC litigation.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the protection of confidential information during patent litigation. Ericsson, the Claimant, sought an 'external eyes only' regime to ensure its proprietary data remained protected while maintaining full adversarial access. The Court granted this specialized confidentiality club, allowing restricted access to unredacted documents for authorized parties and experts from both sides. This ruling provides a clear procedural pathway for managing highly sensitive trade secrets within the UPC framework.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
In a significant decision for the LED industry, the UPC Local Division of Paris found Laser Components SAS liable for infringing Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s patent EP3404726. The court granted a permanent injunction against the sale and use of the infringing UVC LED chips across France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the respondent was ordered to provide extensive sales and distribution data, allowing the claimant to proceed with calculating full damages.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In a significant procedural development concerning solar panel technology, the UPC Local Division Munich granted an extension to multiple defendants. The case involves Chinese claimants asserting infringement against several LONGi-related entities regarding European patent EP 4 372 829. This order allows all parties sufficient time to prepare their defenses and counterclaims for revocation, keeping the core dispute alive.
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.