Energy — European UPC Patent Cases
16 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 16 total
Veolia Proprete v.Tiru
In a complex multi-procedural case, the UPC Central Division addressed challenges to the validity of EP 3178578 B1, which covers waste incineration technology. Although the primary request for full revocation was denied, the Tribunal allowed the patent to be maintained in a modified form based on subsidiary claims. This decision highlights the court's willingness to balance legal certainty with technical innovation by allowing targeted modifications rather than outright cancellation.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH a. o.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division allowed Maxeon Solar to withdraw its infringement action against Aiko Energy and related parties, while simultaneously allowing the Defendants to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. Although the case was settled by mutual agreement, the Court firmly rejected all requests for reimbursement of court fees from both sides. This ruling underscores that procedural agreements must align with strict UPC rules regarding timing and necessity, even in cases of amicable settlement.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In this procedural order concerning a solar technology patent, the UPC Local Division addressed a request for security of legal costs. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, ordering the Claimant to provide EUR 100,000 in security. This decision reinforces the principle that when multiple parties are involved, the determination of cost ceilings must consider the group's overall interest rather than individual liability shares.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This procedural order addressed complex issues arising from parallel litigation involving infringement and revocation of EP3178578. The UPC Local Division decided to join two related infringement actions (TIRU v. VALINEA ENERGIE and TIRU v. MAGUIN) for efficient case management, citing the principle of good administration of justice. Crucially, while counterclaims seeking patent revocation were correctly referred to the Central Division, the court denied the request to stay the ongoing infringement proceedings.
TIRU SAS v.MAGUIN SAS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an appeal challenging an initial ex parte order for evidence preservation concerning a waste incineration patent (EP 3 178 578). The court provided important guidance on the scope of judicial review during evidence gathering, emphasizing that judges ordering evidence do not need to assess patent validity or require disclosure of all known prior art. Ultimately, the appeal by MAGUIN was rejected as they failed to meet the burden of proving why their specific prior art should have been disclosed.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over security for costs in an infringement action involving solar technology patents. The Defendants sought to compel the Claimant, based in China, to provide adequate financial security due to perceived difficulties in enforcing UPC judgments in China. However, the Panel rejected this request, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the requesting party. While the initial application was dismissed, the Court granted leave to appeal for the Defendants regarding the scope and requirements of security requests.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In a procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed the bifurcation issue in the case between Maxeon Solar and several defendants. The court opted to proceed with a joint hearing, combining the infringement action against EP 3 065 184 B1 and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision is significant as it prioritizes judicial efficiency and ensures consistency by having both validity and infringement assessed under a single, uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In a procedural order concerning security of legal costs, the UPC addressed concerns raised by several defendants regarding the financial stability of the claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants' request for security, setting the required amount at EUR 100,000. This decision underscores the court's power to manage procedural risks and ensure that patent holders can bear the costs associated with litigation.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, the UPC addressed a request by several defendants to extend the confidentiality of their financial data (revenue and sales figures). The court partially granted this request, maintaining secrecy for specific green-shaded numbers in existing submissions. However, it firmly rejected the defendants' attempt to make the protection vague and applicable to all future filings, setting a clear boundary on how trade secret protections can be extended during litigation.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This UPC decision addressed a challenge to ex parte evidence preservation orders granted by the Paris Local Division. TIRU sought seizure and site inspections against MAGUIN regarding alleged infringement of its waste incineration patent (EP3178578). MAGUIN challenged these measures, arguing lack of urgency and bad faith on TIRU's part. The court ultimately rejected MAGUIN’s request, affirming that the initial urgent measures were justified given the competitive market environment.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This UPC decision addressed a challenge by VALINEA ENERGIE against an ex-parte evidence preservation order granted to TIRU regarding the patent EP3178578. VALINEA argued that TIRU breached its duty of loyalty and that the request was untimely, suggesting prior knowledge of the patented technology. The Court rejected these arguments, affirming that TIRU's urgency justified the initial ex-parte measure. Furthermore, the court denied VALINEA's attempt to increase the required security deposit.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In this procedural order concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, the UPC Local Division addressed a request for an extension of time periods. The Court balanced the principle of strict adherence to statutory deadlines against practical realities, specifically noting mutual holiday absences in Europe and China. Although the main request for three weeks was denied, the court granted a one-week extension to ensure procedural fairness across all defendants involved in the infringement action.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In a procedural order concerning confidential information in an infringement and revocation action, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed access rights to sensitive financial data. The Court clarified that parties must provide specific, concrete reasons when objecting to or requesting access to confidential information. It ultimately granted access to certain independent consultants involved in patent matters while rejecting a request for another party, emphasizing the strict adherence required under confidentiality rules.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed an application for rectification concerning EP 3 065 184 B1. The court dismissed the request, finding that the original decision was accurate and did not contain any clerical mistakes or 'obvious slips.' This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of Rule 353 RoP regarding when a party can seek to amend a judicial order.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses a request for protection of confidential information during an infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 065 184 B1. The Court accepted the defendants' requests to keep specific financial data—related to revenue, profit, and sales figures—confidential as trade secrets. This decision reinforces the practical application of confidentiality rules within UPC proceedings, allowing for protection even when strict procedural timing requirements are not met.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
TIRU successfully obtained provisional measures (evidence preservation and on-site inspection) against VALINEA ENERGIE regarding alleged infringement of EP3178578. The court recognized its jurisdiction and found that TIRU adequately demonstrated the necessity and scope of the evidence required to prove potential counterfeiting of a waste incinerator technology. This decision is crucial for patent holders needing immediate access to technical documentation before formal litigation begins.
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.