INSTRUMENTS — European UPC Patent Cases
20 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 20 total
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for access to written pleadings and evidence. The court balanced the general interest in public access against concerns regarding confidentiality, personal data protection (GDPR), and copyright. Ultimately, limited access was granted to the law firm representing one party, provided all personal data was redacted.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC Cost Decision addressed Insulet Corporation's request for cost compensation against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The Court found that while the applicant was entitled to recovery of reasonable and proportionate costs related to the merits proceedings, the requested amount needed significant reduction. Key factors influencing this decision included the lack of clarity in submitted invoices, the overlap between arguments presented before the UPC and the Court of Appeal, and the exclusion of costs relating to the enforcement phase. The final award granted Insulet an additional EUR 113,773.40.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by both parties to stay ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 742 231. This decision allows Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH and XSYS entities to engage in settlement negotiations without the immediate pressure of litigation. The stay is tied to the timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings at the EPO, highlighting how UPC procedures can be managed alongside national/EPO actions.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding legal fees incurred during preliminary injunction proceedings. Insulet sought to protect its attorney's fees under privilege, but the UPC emphasized the balance between protecting confidential information and ensuring the respondent's right to be heard. The Court ultimately rejected the attempt to limit access solely to law firms, affirming that at least one natural person from each party must have access for a fair trial.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding legal fees incurred by Insulet Corporation during litigation. The UPC Court balanced the need to protect sensitive commercial information against the fundamental right of EOFLOW Co., Ltd. to a fair trial. While acknowledging the sensitivity of attorney's fees, the court upheld the requirement that at least one natural person from each party must have access to confidential materials, thereby limiting Insulet's ability to restrict disclosure solely to its legal representatives.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for security for costs. The court ruled in favor of Emboline, Inc., requiring AorticLab srl to provide €200,000 in security. This decision highlights that when a party themselves raises concerns about insolvency following an injunction, it satisfies the legal requirement for granting security for costs under the UPC Agreement.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter: the withdrawal of an application for leave to appeal. EOFlow Co., Ltd. sought to withdraw its appeal against a cost decision issued by the Court of First Instance, and Insulet Corporation agreed to this withdrawal. The Court granted the request, confirming that parties can withdraw their actions under Rule 265 RoP when no final judgment has been rendered in the main case.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance rejected Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH's request to amend its infringement action to include the Netherlands. The core issue was not patent validity or infringement itself, but whether the Claimant acted with due diligence after learning that the national part of EP 3 742 231 had been restored in the Netherlands. The Court found that the delay between becoming aware of the restoration and filing the amendment request was unreasonable, setting a clear precedent regarding procedural timeliness in UPC litigation.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation
This procedural order addressed a claim for cost reimbursement filed by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. following the rejection of its preliminary injunction application against Insulet Corporation. The Court ruled that because the underlying patent litigation was proceeding to the merits, costs related to the initial PI phase could not be settled separately. The ruling reinforces the principle that cost assessment must align with the final outcome of the entire case, preventing fragmented financial assessments in complex IP disputes.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation
This UPC procedural order addressed a claim for cost reimbursement filed by EOFLOW following the rejection of its preliminary injunction application against INSULET. The Court ruled that since the underlying infringement case on the merits was still pending, costs could not be awarded based solely on the PI outcome. The ruling reinforces the principle that in complex patent litigation, particularly when an interim measure is followed by a full trial, cost assessment must wait until the final judgment.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this preliminary objection case, the UPC addressed a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding whether its authority extends to alleged patent infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA came into force. The Court decisively rejected the Defendants' argument that international treaty principles (VCLT) limited jurisdiction only to post-entry-into-force actions. This ruling confirms the broad scope of the UPC's competence in handling historical infringement claims, provided they fall under its jurisdictional basis.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Newyu, Inc.)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation involving DexCom, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories/associated companies regarding patent EP 3 831 282. The court emphasized that such withdrawals are permissible during appeal proceedings if no final decision is binding. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties mutually agree to terminate litigation.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application filed by the defendants (XSYS group) seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, consented to this change. The Court granted the request, establishing English as the official language for the main infringement action (No. ACT_46804/2024). This ruling highlights the importance of party agreement in determining procedural parameters within the UPC.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC procedural order addressed a request for intervention filed by Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. in an interim injunction case between Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The Court ultimately rejected the intervention, ruling that Menarini's interest was merely hypothetical and could be sufficiently defended in parallel proceedings before the Local Division Milan. This decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements for third-party intervention in fast-moving provisional measures cases.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case. The appeal sought to change the language from German to English, based on the patent's grant language and the defendant's operational context. The court ultimately sided with the defendant (Google), establishing that while claimants have a right to choose the language, this right is balanced against the principle of fairness for the defendant. This ruling provides important guidance on how procedural rights interact with the need to ensure equitable litigation in the UPC.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Ona Patents SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the timing of written submissions in an ongoing patent dispute involving Apple and Ona Patents SL. The court strictly interpreted the Rules of Procedure, holding that requests for further pleadings must be filed before the rapporteur concludes the written phase and schedules the oral hearing. Consequently, the appellants' late submission was rejected, allowing the case to proceed as planned.
Qufora A/S v.Manfred Sauer GmbH and Mr. Manfred Sauer
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendants (Manfred Sauer GmbH and Mr. Manfred Sauer) to waive translation requirements for several German-language documents in an infringement case against Qufora A/S. The Court ultimately dismissed the waiver request, emphasizing that while both parties had German-speaking representation, the panel itself lacked sufficient language skills regarding the original materials. Crucially, because the Applicants had already provided machine translations as a fallback measure, the procedural application was dismissed without further action.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This procedural order addresses a request for an extension by the defendant, Orbisk B.V., in an infringement action brought by Winnow Solutions Limited concerning patent EP3198245. The Court of First Instance granted the requested extension, allowing Orbisk until September 6, 2024, to respond to the R190 evidence production request. This decision underscores the court's flexibility in managing procedural timelines while maintaining the necessity for timely handling of critical discovery requests.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC Central Division order addressed a procedural dispute during a revocation action concerning EP 3646 825. The core issue was the defendant's attempt to amend its case and patent application late in the proceedings, seeking leave from the court. The panel ultimately sided with the claimant, rejecting the defendant’s request for amendment leave. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to procedural efficiency while applying principles of fairness when managing complex amendments.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Meril Italy srl to extend the written phase of a revocation action against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The claimant sought permission for further pleadings due to new arguments raised by the defendant in its rejoinder. However, the Court ruled that the existing rules governing the written procedure were sufficient and that the request lacked justification under principles of proportionality. This decision reinforces the strict adherence to procedural timelines within UPC revocation actions.
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.