Electronics — European UPC Patent Cases
329 decisions indexed
Page 8 of 11 · 329 total
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In a significant revocation action concerning electronic vapour products, the UPC Central Division dismissed NJOY Netherlands B.V.'s challenge against VMR Products LLC's patent (EP 2 875 740 B1). The Claimant argued that the patent lacked inventive step, but the Court ruled that the alleged lack of inventiveness was not substantiated by the prior art cited. This decision reinforces the robustness of certain technical innovations within the vaping market and serves as a strong defense for patentees against validity challenges.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the scope of judicial competence, specifically whether a judge-rapporteur can unilaterally impose security for costs and deny leave to appeal. The court ruled that while case management orders are generally not directly appealable, the underlying issue raised an important access to justice question about judicial authority. By allowing limited leave to appeal on this procedural point, the Court ensured that fundamental questions of procedure could be addressed by a panel.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC decision addressed an application by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy seeking leave to reduce the damages claimed in an infringement action against Microsoft Corporation. The court ruled that limiting a claim, such as reducing the monetary value of damages, falls under Rule 263(3) and must be granted if properly explained. This reinforces the principle that procedural efficiency allows for necessary adjustments to claims during litigation, provided they are adequately justified.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement and nullity action concerning compatible printer cartridges. The court affirmed the scope of direct infringement under Article 25 AJUB, ruling that prior knowledge by the defendant is not a prerequisite for establishing infringement. While the claimant sought broad remedies including injunctions and damages, the final judgment focused on compelling information disclosure to facilitate damage calculation, while rejecting provisional payment requests.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Scandit AG seeking permission to submit a reply brief in an ongoing infringement appeal against Hand Held Products, Inc. The court ultimately denied the request, reinforcing strict adherence to the rules governing written submissions in the appellate phase. The ruling underscores the importance of 'front-loaded' arguments and efficiency in UPC proceedings, preventing parties from introducing new substantive points late in the process.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought permission to introduce new evidence regarding the respondent's offering of a 'Barryvox S' device with voice control. The court ultimately rejected this request. While existing interim measures protect against infringement by the 'Barryvox S2', the introduction of the 'Barryvox S' requires careful procedural handling, balancing the claimant's need for information against the respondents' right to be heard within the limited time frame.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning an infringement case involving Philips and Belkin regarding inductive power transfer technology (EP 2 867 997). The court ruled on the conditions necessary to grant a stay of execution, emphasizing that the application must be self-sufficient for preliminary review. Crucially, the decision also clarified the legal limitations on holding company directors liable as secondary infringers under EPC Article 63, while ultimately granting the stay against specific individuals.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.European Patent Office (EPO)
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application seeking the reimbursement of court fees related to a previous action against the European Patent Office (EPO). The case, which involved challenging an EPO decision, was closed after the EPO rectified its initial ruling. However, the UPC Court dismissed Qualcomm's request for fee reimbursement. The Court ruled that because the original order on this matter was issued by a single judge and is appealable, the current application could not overturn or modify that prior procedural decision.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Sling TV L.L.C.
In this UPC procedural case (UPC_CFI_471/2023), DISH Technologies and Sling TV sought an order compelling defendants to disclose the source code of their media players used in streaming services. The court ultimately rejected this request, ruling that the balance of interests did not justify forcing the disclosure. This decision highlights the high threshold required for obtaining source code under UPC procedures, emphasizing that claimants must demonstrate a specific, unfulfilled need beyond what can be gathered through existing technical analysis.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Microsoft Corporation to review an order dismissing its application that Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action was manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued the lack of independence of Suinno’s representative made the case clearly bound to fail under R. 361 RoP. The Court ultimately dismissed Microsoft's request, emphasizing that 'manifest inadmissibility' requires a clear-cut situation and should not be used for general disputes over legal interpretation.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Ericsson sought a preliminary injunction against AsusTek, Digital River, and Arvato regarding the alleged infringement of EP 2 819 131 B1 by laptops containing specific Intel Wi-Fi modules. The UPC Local Division in Lisbon ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. While the court affirmed that offering products via an internet domain constitutes infringement, it found that Ericsson failed to meet the cumulative requirements necessary to grant the preliminary injunction.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the scope and access rights under a confidentiality order in an infringement action involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi Technology. The Claimant sought to expand access for its US counsel and include all future confidential information, arguing this was necessary for effective litigation strategy. The Panel rejected these requests, affirming that the initial restrictions were appropriate given jurisdictional constraints and the need for defined scope. Crucially, the Court granted leave to appeal for the Claimant.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH; expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. successfully sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringing its patent covering light emitting diodes (LEDs). The Düsseldorf Local Chamber found infringement, leading to an injunction and damages award against the defendants. Crucially, despite the joint action, the court dismissed the counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent, thereby upholding the validity of EP 3 926 698 B1. This decision reinforces the enforcement power of the UPC while clarifying procedural rules regarding multi-defendant litigation.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
In a significant decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC declared European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1 invalid across key EU territories (Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands). This revocation was achieved through a counterclaim brought by the defendants. Although the patent was invalidated, the court subsequently dismissed the original infringement lawsuit filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The ruling highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where successful revocation does not automatically guarantee success in the initial infringement claim.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal order addressed a procedural challenge brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against an earlier CFI order concerning security for costs. Suinno sought discretionary review, arguing that the original CFI order failed to properly indicate its right to appeal under UPCA rules. The Court ultimately dismissed the request, emphasizing strict adherence to the appellate procedure.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC decision concerns an application by a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) to intervene in a patent infringement and revocation case involving NEC Corporation and TCL entities. The core issue was whether the Applicant had a sufficient legal interest to participate, given that the dispute involved FRAND licensing obligations under the HEVC standard. The Court ultimately permitted the intervention but imposed strict confidentiality measures on the access to sensitive negotiation details.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Order concerns an application to intervene in a patent infringement and revocation case involving NEC Corporation against various TCL entities, concerning HEVC Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The intervener is Access Advance LLC, the administrator of the relevant SEP pool. The Court ruled that the pool administrator possesses a genuine legal interest in the outcome, thereby admitting them as a party to the proceedings. This decision clarifies the procedural rights and limitations regarding confidential information access for patent pool administrators participating in UPC litigation.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision concerns the intervention of a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities. The court affirmed that such administrators possess a genuine legal interest in the outcome, despite their involvement being primarily economic. This ruling clarifies the scope of 'legal interest' for third-party interveners in UPC proceedings, particularly those managing Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).
NEC Corporation v.TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addresses the admissibility of an intervention by a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities. The Court affirmed that such administrators possess a genuine legal interest, despite their involvement being primarily economic (licensing royalties). This ruling is significant for SEP practitioners as it clarifies the standing of patent pool managers in UPC proceedings, allowing them to participate actively to protect their FRAND obligations.
Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This decision from the UPC Appeals Court addressed a procedural dispute regarding deadlines for filing pleadings (Duplik) in an ongoing infringement and revocation action. Xiaomi sought discretionary review to overturn a previous ruling that partially denied their request for a deadline extension, arguing inconsistencies across different Local Divisions of the UPC. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no sufficient grounds to overturn the lower court's procedural decision.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses preliminary objections and requests under Rule 361 RoP in a complex infringement case involving NST and Audi. The court established key procedural boundaries, ruling that R.361 challenges are not suitable for full evidentiary battles. Crucially, the panel affirmed that an initial claim detailing one infringing example while listing others does not automatically fail the 'manifestly bound to fail' test. This decision reinforces the flexibility of UPC procedure while maintaining standards for early case filtering.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Apple and Ona Patents SL. The appeal sought to change the language from German (the patent's granting language) to English, based on the multinational nature of Apple and the technical field's common use of English. The court ultimately sided with Apple, finding that maintaining the German language would disproportionately disadvantage the defendant, thereby upholding the principle of fairness over the claimant's initial choice.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for complex oral hearings in UPC case UPC_CFI_210/2023. The proceedings are highly structured, dedicating one day to technical infringement and validity issues, and a second day to the critical FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) aspects of the dispute. Given the involvement of OPPO and Panasonic, this case is significant for understanding how the UPC manages intertwined technical disputes with complex antitrust/FRAND claims.
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, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for a complex UPC case involving Panasonic and various Xiaomi entities regarding EP 2 568 724. The court has meticulously structured the oral proceedings, dedicating the first day to technical issues like patent validity and infringement, and the second day to the critical FRAND licensing framework. This detailed planning highlights the complexity of modern SEP litigation within the UPC.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Stephen George Edrich, Cooper Marc Gary, McKenna Paul John
In this UPC case, Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin and associated entities for infringing its patent EP 2 867 997 B1 concerning wireless inductive power transfer systems. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent by the defendants' products. Furthermore, the defendants' counterclaims seeking to invalidate the patent were also rejected. This decision reaffirms the scope and validity of the asserted technology while concluding that the specific accused products do not meet the criteria for infringement.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC infringement case between Huawei and Netgear, the court issued an order revoking a previous decision to appoint a translation expert. The revocation was based on the parties' mutual agreement that critical Chinese-language documents related to the patent were identical. This procedural step simplifies the ongoing litigation, allowing the case to proceed without the need for external linguistic verification.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought to expand its infringement lawsuit against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH to include OTECH Germany GmbH. The UPC Local Division of Munich rejected the request for party change, citing procedural issues and process economics. While the claimant argued lack of prior knowledge regarding OTECH's activities, the court maintained that the delay was not justifiable and suggested a new separate action could be filed if necessary.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In this UPC decision, Avago Technologies sued Tesla regarding the infringement of EP 1 838 002, a patent covering programmable hybrid transmitters. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Tesla, declaring the patent invalid for Germany because its claims were anticipated by prior art (D3). This ruling not only dismissed the infringement claim but also established a significant precedent regarding the enforceability of patents facing strong prior art challenges within the UPC framework.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH; Netgear Inc.; Netgear International Limited
Huawei Technologies initiated an infringement action against Netgear entities regarding the Wi-Fi 6 standard, asserting ownership of EP 3 611 989, which is declared essential for the standard. The defendants raised multiple counterclaims, including invalidity and non-infringement arguments. The UPC Local Division in Munich issued a procedural order setting the case for oral hearings in October 2024 and appointing an expert to translate complex technical documents, indicating that the case will proceed to detailed examination.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In this UPC procedural order, Ona Patents SL successfully sought protection for confidential information against Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries. The court confirmed that sensitive data, including internal profit margins and specific technical details about product functionalities, qualifies as a trade secret under Article 58 EPC. This ruling reinforces the scope of trade secret protection in the UPC, clarifying that even negative statements or limited access to specialized knowledge can warrant confidentiality.
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.