Electronics — European UPC Patent Cases
329 decisions indexed
Page 9 of 11 · 329 total
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Hand Held Products sought an injunction against Scandit AG for infringing EP 3 866 051, a patent covering digital scanning devices. The Munich Local Court analyzed the possibility of indirect infringement stemming from the software library. Ultimately, the court denied the request for interim measures, finding that the complexity and variability in hardware/software configuration prevented the necessary certainty required to establish direct liability against the respondent.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH a.o.
This UPC decision between Avago Technologies and Tesla addresses critical procedural aspects of a complex infringement and revocation case concerning power control systems used in vehicles. The court clarified that initial delays due to CMS workflow usage are acceptable, providing flexibility early in the proceedings. Crucially, it affirmed the principle of partial revocation under Article 65(3) EPC, meaning claims can be invalidated selectively rather than requiring total patent destruction.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
Ericsson successfully sought leave to amend its preliminary injunction application in the UPC, specifically adjusting the scope of liability concerning Arvato's role as a service intermediary. The Court granted this amendment, allowing Ericsson to proceed with direct infringement claims against ASUSTek and Digital River Ireland while limiting Arvato's liability under Article 62(1) UPCA. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex supply chain litigation by allowing claimants to refine their legal theories based on factual developments.
KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH v.BALLINNO B.V.
This UPC Central Division decision addressed a procedural application seeking to stay revocation proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal against a denial of provisional measures. The Court firmly rejected Ballinno B.V.'s request, emphasizing that allowing such indefinite delays would violate the fundamental right to effective legal protection and contradict the UPCA's goal of ensuring final hearings occur within one year. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining procedural efficiency and timely justice in revocation actions.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning an order from the Court of First Instance that rejected Microsoft's application to declare Suinno's infringement action manifestly inadmissible. The court ruled that such orders, which deal with case management and procedural admissibility (R.361 RoP), are not subject to discretionary appeal under Rule 220.3 RoP. Instead, they must be challenged via an application for review by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This UPC appeal addressed the scope of confidentiality protections and the inclusion of in-house counsel under Rule 262A RoP. The claimants argued that their respondents' US-based in-house patent attorneys posed an inherent risk of misusing confidential information for parallel litigation strategies, demanding a 'prosecution bar.' However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that abstract risks are insufficient to deny access if no concrete evidence of misconduct exists. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural necessity and expert involvement often outweigh theoretical confidentiality concerns in UPC proceedings.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC; Arvato Netherlands B.V.; Digital River Ireland Ltd.
In this preliminary injunction proceeding, Ericsson sought to proceed despite alleged non-compliance by its opponents with disclosure rules (R. 13.1(h) RoP). The defendants argued that the lack of full documentation from prior proceedings harmed their defense. However, the UPC Court ultimately dismissed the defendants' request, finding that R. 13.1(h) only requires information about the existence of prior actions, not the exhaustive disclosure of all associated evidence like pleadings or expert reports. This decision clarifies the scope of procedural compliance in urgent provisional measures cases.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, AUDI AG
Network System Technologies LLC successfully withdrew its infringement action against Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH following a settlement, as permitted under UPC Rule 265 RoP. The court formally closed these proceedings while leaving the claims against Volkswagen AG and AUDI AG unaffected. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties reach private settlements.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the proper filing of exhibits and the extension of deadlines in an infringement action involving NEC Corporation against various TCL entities. The Defendants argued that procedural errors, such as the exhibit replacement request not being filed by the strictly designated CMS representative, warranted a full deadline extension. However, the UPC Panel rejected this argument, emphasizing the general duty to support proceedings and the need for efficient case management. The Court confirmed that while flexibility exists in representation (Rule 8.2 RoP), procedural extensions must be used cautiously. The ruling reinforces the principle that parties cannot benefit from their own non-compliance with procedural duties.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. initiated an infringement lawsuit against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning EP 3 339 920 B1. However, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently filed a request to withdraw the claim. The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal, formally ending the proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can lead to the dismissal of UPC infringement actions.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.
This UPC decision addresses a request for public access to case files by a third party (DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.). The court analyzed the balance between the applicant's interest in obtaining documents and the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing infringement proceedings. Ultimately, the court denied the access request, emphasizing that procedural fairness and confidentiality must prevail over speculative or indirect interests.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. initiated an infringement lawsuit against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning the patent EP 2 402 415 B1. However, before a full hearing could take place, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently agreed to withdraw the claim. The Düsseldorf Local Division formally accepted this withdrawal, terminating the case.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH; expert klein GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court addressed a claimant's request to introduce further amendments to an existing European patent (EP 3 926 698 B1). The court rejected the motion, establishing a strict interpretation of the UPC Rules of Procedure. The decision clarifies that late-stage amendment requests do not activate the standard two-month response window for defendants, thereby preventing procedural stagnation and ensuring the timely conduct of litigation.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC decision concerns an application for third-party intervention (Streithilfe) in a patent infringement case. The claimant sued the respondent over EP 2 643 717, which covers specialized optics for outdoor display boards used in LED traffic signs. A Chinese manufacturer, Chainzone Technology, sought to join the proceedings as a third party because its products were allegedly infringing. The court admitted the intervention but conditioned it on the deposit of EUR 134,000 to cover potential legal costs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a complex procedural issue regarding service of process in international UPC cases. The claimant (Panasonic) faced repeated failures when attempting to serve documents on the respondent (Xiaomi HK Limited) via the Hague Service Convention due to political objections by the receiving authority. The court ultimately ruled that since all formal attempts were exhausted and further efforts were futile, the prior steps constituted valid service under Rule 275.2 VerfO. This ruling provides a crucial procedural pathway for claimants facing diplomatic or administrative hurdles in cross-border litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This decision from the Local Division Mannheim addresses a critical procedural hurdle: service of process. The claimant, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, faced repeated failures in serving Xiaomi H.K. Limited due to objections from foreign receiving authorities regarding the naming conventions on the patent documents. The court ultimately ruled that since all formal attempts were exhausted and deemed futile, the prior efforts constituted valid legal notice. This sets a precedent for how UPC proceedings can proceed when external political or administrative barriers prevent traditional service.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a critical procedural hurdle: service of process. The claimant, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, faced repeated failures in serving its infringement claim against Xiaomi H.K. Limited due to objections from foreign receiving authorities regarding the defendant's designation. The court ultimately ruled that since all formal and alternative delivery methods had been exhausted without success, the steps already taken were sufficient to constitute valid service under UPC rules. This ruling provides significant clarity on how courts can overcome jurisdictional barriers caused by external political or administrative refusals during international litigation.
Dolby International AB v.HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Finland Oy, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP Austria GmbH, HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc Danmark ApS, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Italy S.r.l., HP France SAS, HP International SARL, HP PPS Sverige AB, HP Belgium SPRL, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV
In a case concerning the infringement of an HEVC essential patent, Dolby International AB sought protection for its confidential information via an assisting party (Access Advance LLC). The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order granting this request. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms within the UPC that allow parties and assisting parties to protect trade secrets during litigation, ensuring sensitive business data remains restricted to authorized personnel.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Central Division rejected a revocation action against EP 3 414 708. The case centered on complex arguments regarding the admissibility of patent amendments to claims that were not directly challenged in the initial revocation suit. By maintaining the patent in its amended form, the court provided clarity on how patentees can utilize procedural mechanisms like auxiliary requests during litigation, even when only a subset of claims is attacked.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.BITZER Electronics A/S; Carrier Corporation
In a decision concerning public access to court files, the UPC granted an application by Mathys & Squire LLP. The applicant sought access to all written pleadings and evidence in a patent validity case (EP 3 414 708). The Court determined that the general interest of the public in transparency superseded any potential confidentiality concerns under Article 45 UPCA, particularly as the proceedings were concluding. This ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to open justice while balancing party interests.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC rejected a request by Xiaomi entities to extend their deadline for filing a statement of defense in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC regarding a patented chip technology. The court emphasized that the existing time limits are robust enough to handle complex international technical coordination and did not accept arguments related to supplier confidentiality or lack of internal technical insight as sufficient grounds for an exception. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining strict procedural timelines while offering specific mechanisms, such as R. 262A RoP, for handling confidential information.
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
This UPC decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the protection of confidential information (Rule 262A) within an infringement case involving Dolby International AB and various HP entities. The core issue was defining the scope of access for Access Advance LLC, which had joined as a third-party intervenor in the patent pool dispute. The court granted the status of intervenor but imposed strict limitations on who could view the unredacted confidential documents.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG et al. v.Ona Patents SL
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Apple seeking to accelerate the appeal process and reduce the deadline for Ona's reply. The court ultimately denied the request, holding that while acceleration was possible, Apple failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to override Ona's right to a fair trial. This case underscores the judiciary's careful balancing act between party efficiency demands and fundamental procedural fairness within the UPC framework.
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 decision from the Lokalkammer Mannheim addresses a request for protective measures concerning confidential information, specifically patent licensing agreements between Panasonic and Xiaomi entities. The court partially granted the protection regime, establishing strict rules on who can access these sensitive documents. This ruling highlights the UPC's detailed procedural mechanisms for managing trade secrets during litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a procedural dispute regarding the submission of pleadings in an infringement case. The respondents sought extensions for their reply and rejoinder, citing redacted documents from the claimant's initial filing. However, the court rejected these requests, establishing a strict rule that placeholders via redactions are procedurally unacceptable. This ruling emphasizes the importance of full transparency and timely disclosure of all arguments to ensure a fair defense process in UPC litigation.
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
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division of Mannheim addressed Panasonic Holdings Corporation's request for confidentiality protection concerning sensitive information related to its patent licensing agreements with third parties. The court partially granted this request, establishing strict rules governing who can access and how the confidential documents may be used within the proceedings. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to protecting commercially sensitive data during litigation, balancing transparency requirements with proprietary interests.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a request for trade secret protection (R. 262A VerfO) in connection with patent litigation involving Panasonic and OPPO/OROPE. The core dispute centered on the scope of confidentiality, specifically regarding licensing agreements and negotiations. While the court upheld some level of protection for sensitive information, it simultaneously limited access rights requested by the defendants to ensure procedural fairness across parallel UPC and national proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a motion for protective measures concerning confidential information related to patent licensing and FRAND negotiations in the case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court carefully balanced the claimant's need for secrecy regarding sensitive commercial data against the respondents' demands for broader access during litigation. Ultimately, the protection was partially granted, establishing strict rules on who can view the documents and for what purpose.
ARM Limited v.ICPillar LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application concerning service and confidentiality during appeal proceedings related to infringement of EP 3000239. Although the court confirmed that ARM was technically served with ICPillar's statement of appeal, it acknowledged technical difficulties preventing ARM from accessing the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy). Consequently, the Court granted an extension for ARM to file its response, ensuring due process is maintained despite CMS issues.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
In a significant procedural ruling concerning trade secrets, the UPC Local Court in Munich addressed requests for confidentiality related to litigation documents. The court consolidated and confirmed an order protecting specific information submitted by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi and its affiliates. This decision is crucial for practitioners as it sets clear boundaries on how sensitive business information can be handled during complex cross-border patent disputes.
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.