Electronics — European UPC Patent Cases
329 decisions indexed
Page 6 of 11 · 329 total
Atlas Global Techonologies GmbH v.TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE.LTD.
Atlas Global Techonologies GmbH initiated infringement and revocation proceedings against TP-Link entities concerning EP 3 186 937. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber issued an order suspending the entire case based on a mutual agreement reached by all parties involved in the litigation. This suspension is a common procedural mechanism used to allow parties time for negotiation or settlement outside of court, effectively pausing the legal battle.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
This UPC decision addressed a third party's request for access to the file in an ongoing infringement and revocation case concerning printer cartridge patents (EP2089230 and EP1737669). LIFE 365 S.R.L. sought full disclosure, arguing that the technical arguments from the UPC proceedings were relevant to its parallel litigation in Italy. The court ultimately granted limited access to key pleadings but denied broader access, emphasizing that only documents directly necessary for the Italian dispute would be shared.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P (Demandeur) and LAMA France (Défendeur)
This UPC procedural decision addressed a third party's request for access to the case file (UPC_CFI_358/2023). LIFE 365, an Italian company involved in the printer cartridge market, sought full access to documents related to the infringement and revocation proceedings between HPDC and LAMA France. The court balanced the applicant's legitimate interest—driven by ongoing national litigation and high costs—against the need to protect confidentiality and maintain procedural integrity. Ultimately, limited access was granted, restricting disclosure only to specific pleadings relevant to the patent validity challenge.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning a cost order issued by the CFI in provisional measures proceedings. Barco N.V., the appellant, sought to suspend the enforcement of a €112,000 cost award against it. The Court ultimately rejected this request, upholding the principle that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are met. This case reinforces the strict application of procedural rules regarding the suspension of judicial decisions within the UPC framework.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
In this preliminary ruling concerning an infringement case (UPC_CFI_471/2023), the court addressed a motion by the defendants to introduce arguments and interpretations from a related US patent proceeding. The court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing that differing views on claim scope in foreign proceedings are not admissible for interpreting the European patent claims. This decision reinforces the principle of procedural order within the UPC, requiring parties to present all relevant facts and legal arguments promptly.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed an issue of service in a solar technology infringement case involving Jinko Solar and LONGi Solar. The court determined that despite a defendant failing to collect a registered letter containing the statement of claim, the attempted service was valid under the Rules of Procedure. This ruling ensures procedural efficiency by establishing a deemed date of service for the defendant, allowing the main infringement action to move forward.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.Soltech Energy GbR
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed issues of service on defendants. The Court confirmed that despite one defendant failing to collect a registered letter notification for two weeks and subsequently refusing acceptance, the statement of claim was deemed validly served according to Rule 271.6.b RoP. This ruling ensures procedural efficiency by establishing a clear date of service, allowing the infringement case against Soltech Energy GbR to move forward.
Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of a counterclaim for patent revocation filed by Ericsson against Motorola. Following an initial infringement action, Ericsson sought to withdraw its revocation claim and associated appeal after both parties agreed that there was no legitimate interest in the court proceeding. The Court granted the withdrawal based on the respondent's consent, effectively closing the case.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a procedural application concerning public access to court documents in the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_135/2024). The claimant sought extensive access to all filed exhibits and pleadings. The Court partially granted this request, allowing access to specific redacted versions of key documents while rejecting broader requests for further redaction or disclosure.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG seeking to correct errors in a prior judgment. The claimant successfully argued for the removal of specific phrasing ('direkt oder indirekt') from several claims due to clerical mistakes made during drafting. However, the request to formally add all participating counsel was denied, setting clear boundaries on what constitutes an 'obvious inaccuracy' under UPC procedural rules.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC; DIGITAL RIVER IRELAND LTD.
Ericsson initiated an infringement action against AsusTek and Digital River concerning EP 2 819 131 B1. Due to Digital River's insolvency, Ericsson sought leave to withdraw the claim against that defendant. The UPC Court granted this partial withdrawal, allowing the main case to proceed solely against AsusTek. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility of the UPC in managing cases involving insolvent parties while maintaining fairness.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
In a key procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected preliminary objections raised by major electronics manufacturers (Hisense, TCL, LG) against Corning Incorporated. The court affirmed its jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, holding that local infringing acts in Germany are sufficient to establish competence, even without proving a direct commercial relationship between the claimant and all defendants. This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings to proceed.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected the defendants' multiple applications to stay infringement proceedings related to EP 3 296 274. The defendants, representing major electronics groups (Hisense, TCL, LG), argued that joining cases was necessary for a fair trial and due to difficulties in serving parties in China/Hong Kong. The Court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing the lack of an obligation to sue all suppliers jointly. Furthermore, the court issued a procedural order mandating that all parties consolidate their filings into a single workflow to prevent unnecessary delays and administrative burden.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Hamburg Local Division addressed a request by multiple defendants to compel the Chinese claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., to provide security for costs. The Court rejected the motion, emphasizing that nationality or domicile alone cannot justify such an order. The ruling reinforces the principle that parties must present concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties rather than relying on general assumptions about foreign judgment recognition.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In this procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division, TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC sought permission to file a further written submission, arguing that Defendants had raised complex and new technical points. The Court denied the request, emphasizing that parties must provide detailed substantiation when requesting deviations from the standard written procedure framework (R. 12 RoP). This decision reinforces the need for precision in procedural filings within the UPC.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a critical procedural issue regarding the synchronization of proceedings between the Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Office. The claimant successfully sought permission to amend its infringement claims, incorporating changes made during EPO opposition proceedings and introducing a newly discovered infringing product. The court emphasized that true synchronization requires the ability to translate EPO amendments into actionable claim versions within the UPC action, setting important procedural boundaries for patent litigation practitioners.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC appeal case involved ILME GmbH seeking to suspend the main infringement and revocation proceedings before the Local Division Munich while its preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court was being heard on appeal. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing the need for procedural efficiency and timely resolution. This decision reinforces the principle that jurisdictional challenges should be addressed within the UPC framework without unduly delaying substantive litigation.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a procedural motion regarding deadlines in an appeal case involving ILME and Phoenix Contact, concerning patent EP 3 646 825. The court was asked to grant a three-week extension for one party's reply brief. Ultimately, the court granted only a minimal three-day extension, emphasizing the need for efficient proceedings while maintaining procedural balance.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This decision addressed an application for access to court files (Rule 262) within a complex UPC infringement case. The Court acknowledged the general public interest in observing proceedings but prioritized protecting sensitive information and mitigating technical risks associated with the CMS workflow system. Consequently, it granted limited access to redacted versions of documents, setting a precedent for balancing transparency against confidentiality in high-stakes UPC litigation.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
Barco N.V. sought provisional measures against Yealink entities regarding the European patent EP 3 732 827. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the application, finding that there was no sufficient urgency to warrant preliminary relief. While denying the injunction, the court clarified several important procedural matters, including its own territorial competence and the cumulative nature of requirements for granting provisional measures. This decision serves as a reminder to applicants that demonstrating immediate necessity is paramount in urgent UPC proceedings.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for security for costs in an infringement proceeding involving solar technology. The Court ultimately granted the request, despite the Claimant's argument that non-EU domicile alone should not be grounds for such an order. The ruling hinged on practical difficulties faced by European courts when serving documents in China, specifically citing issues related to the Hague Service Convention. This case highlights how procedural enforcement challenges can override general principles of jurisdiction and cost allocation within the UPC framework.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
In this UPC case, Dolby International AB sued Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. for infringement of EP 3 490 258. The defendants raised a complex jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the UPC's legal basis was incompatible with EU law. The court decisively rejected these arguments, confirming its jurisdiction based on the claimants' assertions. Consequently, the exception was dismissed, and the main infringement proceedings will proceed, setting the stage for further litigation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku Inc.
In this UPC case, Sun Patent Trust sued Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. for infringement of EP 2 903 267. The defendants raised significant jurisdictional challenges, arguing that the EPCG was incompatible with EU law (AEUV/EUV). The court decisively rejected these arguments, affirming the UPC's jurisdiction over both current and past acts of alleged infringement. Consequently, the opposition was dismissed, and the main infringement proceedings will proceed.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
In this procedural order, the UPC dismissed MediaTek Inc.'s preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction in an infringement case brought by Daedalus Prime LLC. The claimant alleged that MediaTek was liable for supplying processors used in infringing Xiaomi smartphones marketed across UPC territories. The court ruled that despite MediaTek's non-domicile status, international jurisdiction is established because the patent has effect in Member States and a commercial relationship exists between the parties. This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings to continue.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement and revocation action against CUPOWER for allegedly infringing its Boost-PFC circuit patent (EP 2 011 218 B1) used in LED drivers. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision underscores the high bar required to prove infringement or successfully challenge a granted European patent within the unified system.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a dispute over the refund percentage for court fees following the withdrawal of patent infringement claims. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought an increase from 40% to 60%, arguing that they were not properly informed about the conclusion of written proceedings. The Court upheld the initial ruling, emphasizing that despite the complexity of the case, the established framework for fee refunds was maintained. This decision reinforces the court's discretion under Rule 370.9(e) EPGVerfO to limit refunds in cases where the judicial effort expended is deemed substantial.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, Panasonic Holdings Corporation challenged a lower court's ruling regarding the percentage of court fee refunds after withdrawing its infringement claims against Xiaomi and OPPO. Panasonic sought an increase from 40% to 60%, arguing that procedural timing was unclear. However, the Local Division upheld the original 40% refund, emphasizing that while the case was complex, the statutory rules governing fee reduction based on withdrawal timing must be strictly applied.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
In this procedural matter before the UPC Court of Appeal, Network System Technologies LLC sought the release of substantial security deposits previously ordered by the Munich Local Division. The security had been required to cover potential legal costs related to infringement proceedings against Volkswagen AG. Crucially, NTS subsequently withdrew its infringement actions at the lower court level. The Court of Appeal agreed that with the withdrawal of the main claims, the basis for maintaining the security vanished. This decision provides a clear procedural precedent regarding the timely release of funds when underlying litigation is terminated by the claimant.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of infringement actions. Network System Technologies LLC had deposited substantial funds to cover legal costs incurred by Audi AG during the proceedings. Since NTS subsequently withdrew its claims and closed the case at the Munich Local Division, the Court of Appeal granted the application for the full return of these security amounts. This ruling provides clarity on the procedural mechanism for releasing financial guarantees when litigation concludes prematurely.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
In a procedural ruling within the UPC Local Division, the court addressed Chainzone Technology's request for access to case files related to EP2643717. Despite initial delays and considerations regarding ongoing proceedings, the court ultimately granted the requested file access. This decision underscores the importance of transparency in UPC proceedings, even when preliminary measures like evidence preservation are involved.
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.