Electronics — European UPC Patent Cases
329 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 11 · 329 total
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
In this UPC case, SWARCO FUTURIT sought evidence preservation regarding alleged patent infringement by Yunex GmbH concerning specialized collection optics used in LED display panels. The court ultimately dismissed the application because of procedural actions taken by the respondent, making further investigation unnecessary. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements within the UPC framework for preliminary measures like evidence preservation.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This UPC procedural order sets the stage for a complex infringement case involving advanced electronic components. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd sued Laser Components SAS over patent EP3404726, focusing on specific electrode structures in PKB chips. The court confirmed key legal and factual disputes, including the interpretation of technical terms and the weight given to expert analysis. The parties have now moved into the oral hearing phase scheduled for March 13, 2025.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the scope of confidential information protection in an infringement case involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi. The court overturned a previous decision that denied access to Daedalus's US attorneys, recognizing their trustworthiness and necessity for effective litigation. This decision clarifies the boundaries of R. 262A RoP, confirming that professional assistants outside the strict definition of UPC representatives can be granted necessary access.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case, the respondents challenged the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringement acts that occurred before the UPC Agreement came into force. The court decisively rejected this objection, affirming its competence to hear claims concerning pre-UPC period activities. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the temporal scope of the UPC's jurisdiction, providing certainty for claimants pursuing historical infringement claims.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This procedural order in the UPC addressed a request by Ericsson (Defendants) to classify certain information related to pre-dispute license negotiations as confidential under R. 262A RoP. Ericsson sought protection for internal calculations and negotiation details, arguing they were highly confidential business secrets. The Court ultimately rejected this application entirely, emphasizing that parties cannot restrict their own access to their proprietary information during proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This UPC decision in Mannheim concerns the procedural conclusion of a patent infringement and revocation case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation against various Xiaomi entities. The parties reached an agreement and subsequently withdrew both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for invalidity. Although the core dispute was settled, the court issued detailed rulings on the reimbursement of court fees based on the final determination of the dispute's value.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
In a procedural confirmation case, the UPC Paris Local Division confirmed a settlement reached between C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED and NOVAWELL regarding infringement of EP 2265793. The parties had initially engaged in both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. By confirming the settlement, the Court formally dismissed the proceedings while maintaining the confidentiality of the agreement's terms. This decision highlights the UPC's role in providing judicial finality to private commercial resolutions.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek Computer Inc.
In this UPC case involving Lenovo against ASUSTEK entities, the Local Division issued an order consolidating the proceedings. The court decided to hear both the infringement claim brought by Lenovo and the counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 682 587 together. This procedural step is significant as it streamlines the litigation process, allowing the validity of the patent to be assessed concurrently with its alleged infringement.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC decision addresses a procedural gap regarding the reimbursement of court fees when an application for interim measures is withdrawn. The Court ruled that despite the strict wording of the Rules of Procedure, the principle allowing fee recovery upon withdrawal could be analogously applied to interim measure applications. This provides clarity and predictability for practitioners dealing with early-stage litigation in the UPC.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Lenovo initiated infringement proceedings against ASUSTek and its subsidiaries before the UPC Local Division in Munich regarding EP patent 3 682 587. The court issued a procedural order setting out the next steps in the litigation. Key dates were established for an interim video conference hearing (September 2025) and the main oral proceedings (November 2025). This case highlights the structured, multi-stage nature of UPC infringement actions.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision from the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) concerns a procedural application filed by a patent attorney seeking public access to case documents. The court granted this request, specifically allowing viewing of materials related to the counterclaim for revocation (CC_581177/2023). This ruling highlights the UPC's commitment to transparency while maintaining strict boundaries regarding which files are accessible.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics addresses several key motions, including claim amendments and confidentiality. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, a crucial step allowing the claimant to adapt its legal strategy based on the defendant's recent submissions. While other requests were dismissed, this decision keeps the infringement and revocation proceedings alive as they move toward an Interim Conference.
BF exaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving NVIDIA and two German claimants (BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG). The defendants sought to change the court language from German to English, matching the patent grant language. However, the Court ultimately dismissed this request. The ruling emphasizes that while convenience for large corporations is a factor, the principle of ensuring fair access to justice for medium-sized enterprises must take precedence when weighing the interests of the parties.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC decision addressed an infringement claim concerning color-and-light mixing optics used in outdoor display boards. The court granted the injunction, compelling the respondent to remove the infringing products from distribution or arrange their destruction. However, the plaintiff's request for public disclosure of the ruling was rejected, emphasizing that such publication requires a strong interest that outweighs potential harm to the defendant. This case provides clear guidance on the scope of injunctive relief and the stringent requirements for court-ordered publicity in UPC proceedings.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding security for costs in an ongoing infringement action involving TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR and Texas Instruments. The claimant challenged the initial order, arguing that the judge-rapporteur lacked competence to issue such a binding case management order and simultaneously deny leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that since security for costs is a case management matter, only the full panel can decide on leave to appeal. Consequently, the original order was revoked, and the case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC decision concerns a procedural matter where Avago Technologies sought to withdraw its application for interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation regarding EP 1 770 912. The court granted the withdrawal, noting that since the initial order had not been served and the respondent was unaware of the proceedings, no active participation or hearing was required. This ruling underscores the procedural flexibility within the UPC when parties voluntarily terminate actions.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
In this UPC case, Netgear Deutschland GmbH and its affiliates successfully withdrew their infringement action against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The withdrawal was based on an agreement between the parties, leading to the termination of the proceedings. Although the core dispute was settled out of court, the claimant secured a partial refund of 40% of the paid court fees from the UPC.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for intervention by MediaTek, the manufacturer of the processors at issue (Dimensity). The appeal concerned a procedural dispute over access to confidential information regarding processor architecture. The court found that MediaTek possessed a direct and present legal interest in protecting this proprietary information, despite Xiaomi being the party who initially submitted it. This ruling reinforces the rights of technology owners to participate in confidentiality disputes related to their core intellectual property within UPC proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd has initiated an infringement lawsuit against Netgear International Limited and its affiliates concerning European Patent EP 3 678 321. Crucially, the court has consolidated this infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation, meaning both sides will argue simultaneously on whether the patent is valid and if it is being infringed. This procedural consolidation sets the stage for a comprehensive trial in Munich.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In this UPC decision concerning an infringement action, the Court addressed a request by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to reduce its security for costs from EUR 300,000 to EUR 100,000. The Court ultimately denied the reduction request. A key finding was that the determination of the value of proceedings—which dictates the security amount—must be based on the objective interest at the time the action was filed, making subsequent changes in claimed damages irrelevant for this purpose.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case UPC_CFI_152/2024 involves Netgear (claimant) and Huawei (respondent). The court addressed two key procedural matters: incorporating a relevant Qualcomm license agreement from a prior infringement case into the current non-infringement determination, and assigning an expert judge. The decision emphasizes judicial efficiency by linking proceedings and utilizing specialized expertise to handle complex cross-case issues.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a case concerning an infringement action, Microsoft challenged the Court of First Instance's decision that allowed Suinno to reduce its claimed damages. Microsoft argued this change compromised its defense and exceeded procedural limits. However, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Microsoft’s discretionary review request, affirming that allowing a party to unconditionally limit their claim is a standard procedure under the Rules of Procedure (R 263.3 RoP). This decision reinforces the flexibility and fairness built into the UPC's litigation framework regarding claim amendments.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This UPC Procedural Order addressed the critical issue of protecting confidential information within a complex infringement and revocation action involving major solar energy players. The Court carefully balanced the need for trade secret protection against the public nature of some submitted data. While granting confidentiality to protect sensitive financial metrics, the court denied requests to shield technical details already disclosed in parallel national proceedings, setting important boundaries for disclosure in UPC litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, Panasonic Holdings Corporation successfully withdrew its infringement actions against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by all parties after the written proceedings were concluded. While the core dispute over patent infringement is resolved through termination, the court provided procedural clarity regarding cost allocation and partial refunds of court fees.
Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC decision addressed an application for access to court files filed by Harting Electric Stiftung & Co. KG (the applicant) in a case involving infringement and opposition proceedings related to EP 3 602 692. The core dispute was whether the applicant, who is also involved in national litigation concerning derivative utility models, had a right to review evidence from the main UPC infringement suit. The court ultimately granted access, establishing that parties in ongoing opposition proceedings have a legitimate interest in reviewing relevant case materials for proper defense and representation.
LAMA FRANCE v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P
This UPC decision addressed procedural requests following a substantive judgment, specifically concerning the stay of execution and confidentiality during information exchange. The court firmly rejected LAMA France's request to suspend the enforcement of the prior decision, citing lack of jurisdiction under current rules. However, it validated the need for a restricted confidential circle (club de confidentialité) to protect trade secrets related to financial data exchanged between the parties.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This UPC decision between Huawei and Netgear addresses critical intersections of patent law, antitrust compliance (FRAND), and exhaustion principles in the telecommunications sector. The court ruled that a patent holder's obligation to offer FRAND terms is complex; making multiple acceptable offers can prevent an infringement suit from being dismissed on cartel grounds. While the core lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, specific claims were granted with an injunction, highlighting the nuanced application of these legal doctrines.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH, and Belkin Limited
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 2 867 997 B1), Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a disclosure order against Belkin International and its subsidiaries. After the defendants failed to provide complete, organized information in an electronic format as required by the initial judgment, the court imposed a substantial Zwangsgeld (coercive fine). The ruling serves as a strong warning that non-compliance with judicial orders for evidence or information can lead to significant financial penalties under UPC rules.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finland Oy, HP Italy S.r.l., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD
In a procedural ruling concerning the dispute over EP 3 490 258 B1, Dolby International AB withdrew its infringement claim against various HP entities. Concurrently, the defendants successfully had their counterclaim for revocation withdrawn. The court formally terminated both proceedings based on the mutual agreement of the parties. This case highlights how strategic settlement and procedural agreements can lead to the early termination of complex UPC litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc.
Huawei sought a provisional measure (Anti-Suit/Anti-Enforcement Injunction) against Netgear, arguing that Netgear's US antitrust lawsuit threatened its European patent rights related to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei contended that such an injunction would constitute an unlawful interference with its property rights in Germany. Although the court recognized the potential illegality of such a measure under German law, it ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures.
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.