MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, INSTRUMENTS — European UPC Patent Cases
11 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 11 total
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning procedural fairness in the UPC, the Court of Appeal addressed an application for security for costs. The court held that if a claimant holds comprehensive litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement (AAE) from an EU insurer, this coverage is sufficient to mitigate the risk of non-recoverable legal costs. This decision provides substantial relief to SMEs and claimants by establishing that financial solvency can be demonstrated through robust insurance rather than solely relying on bank guarantees.
Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application regarding confidentiality during appeal proceedings. Kodak, the appellant, sought a new confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP, citing the need to protect trade secrets in its grounds of appeal. The UPC ruled that since the original CFI orders explicitly stipulated their continuation into appellate stages, the requests for a new regime were superfluous and dismissed.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a significant enforcement ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance imposed severe penalties on Kodak entities for non-compliance with a previous final decision regarding EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm successfully argued that despite clear deadlines and notices, the Defendants failed to execute obligations related to information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from commerce. The court established a multi-tiered penalty structure, starting with an immediate lump sum payment of €100,000, escalating to daily fines, underscoring the UPC's robust enforcement mechanisms.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request by Kodak defendants seeking enhanced confidentiality protections for information disclosed during enforcement proceedings following an earlier infringement judgment. The court rejected these requests, emphasizing that such confidentiality issues should have been raised and addressed within the original merits proceedings. The ruling reinforces the principle that existing judicial limitations on information use are often sufficient, preventing parties from using tactical procedural applications to secure retroactive secrecy.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a request for panel review concerning an intended enforcement warning related to EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm Corporation sought to impose daily penalties on the Kodak defendants for non-compliance with previous court orders (destruction, recall, removal from commerce). The Panel ultimately rejected this review request, affirming that the original decision was legally sound. This ruling reinforces the procedural boundaries of UPC panel reviews, clarifying that detailed penalty setting must occur in a subsequent application rather than being altered during a review of the main judgment.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sought a warning from the UPC Local Division Mannheim, requesting that Kodak GmbH and its affiliates pay up to EUR 30,000 per day if they failed to comply with information requests set out in a previous judgment. The court rejected this application, emphasizing that since the original decision retained flexibility regarding timelines and penalties, any enforcement or penalty determination must occur through subsequent applications. This ruling reinforces the procedural approach of the UPC concerning non-compliance warnings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This decision addresses an application for rectification filed by Kodak against a previous ruling concerning patent infringement and revocation. The defendants sought to clarify the value in dispute, arguing it should be set separately for the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. However, the UPC Local Division dismissed this request, confirming that the original panel intended the EUR 15 million figure to cover both actions collectively. This case reinforces the strict interpretation of Rule 353 RoP regarding what constitutes an 'obvious slip' or deviation from the court's actual intention.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Kodak against a judgment issued by the Court of First Instance in an infringement case brought by Fujifilm. The court ruled that the appeal did not have suspensive effect, rejecting Kodak's request to halt the enforcement of the initial judgment. The ruling emphasized that while appeals can be challenged, the appellant must demonstrate manifest errors in the lower court's decision, which Kodak failed to do.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 476 616, the UPC Local Division Mannheim separated the infringement proceedings related to the UK national part. This decision was driven by the pending ECJ ruling (C-339/22) on international jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation. The court aimed to balance the need for timely enforcement of patent rights against the necessity of properly addressing a fundamental question of European law, ensuring both parties have an opportunity to comment on the ECJ's decision.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim separated the infringement proceedings related to the UK national part of EP 3 511 174. This decision was necessitated by an outstanding ECJ ruling concerning international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation. The court aimed to prevent undue delay in enforcement while ensuring all parties had a fair opportunity to comment on the pending European law question.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request for simultaneous interpretation in a complex infringement case involving Fujifilm and Kodak. The Mannheim Local Division ruled that while ensuring fair trial rights necessitates allowing the Claimant to use an interpreter, it firmly rejected the request for the Court to fund these services. The court clarified that since Japanese is not an official language of the division, the financial burden rests solely with the party requesting the interpretation.
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.