MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, CHEMISTRY — European UPC Patent Cases
3 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 3 total
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH; Hisense Europe Holding GmbH; TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG; TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH; TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o.; TCL Belgium, SA
In this complex UPC case involving Corning Incorporated against multiple defendants, the Court of First Instance permitted a partial withdrawal of the infringement action. The claimant agreed to close the proceedings against two specific defendants (Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and Hisense Europe Holding GmbH), while the main suit continued against the remaining TCL entities. Concurrently, the counterclaim for revocation filed by these same parties was also withdrawn, leading to a proportional reimbursement of court fees.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed requests for partial withdrawal of an infringement action (UPC_CFI_819/2024) concerning EP 3 296 274. The Claimant successfully sought to withdraw the action against Defendants 7 through 9, and these defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This decision allowed the main infringement proceedings to continue against the remaining parties (Defendants 1-6), while formally closing the dispute with Defendants 7-9.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH; Hisense Europe Holding GmbH; TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG.; TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH; TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o; TCL Belgium, SA; LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH; LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V; LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning the separation of infringement proceedings based on concerns over confidential supply chain information. The defendants (Hisense, TCL, LG) argued that sharing sensitive data among competing entities would violate EU competition law and impair their right to be heard. However, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that procedural economy outweighs the need for separation. It clarified that confidentiality can be protected through existing rules of procedure (R. 262A RoP) and internal party arrangements.
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.