Mechanical — European UPC Patent Cases
108 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 4 · 108 total
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an urgent inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. ahead of a main infringement lawsuit concerning its patent on surface treatment processes. The claimant argued that the respondent's specialized sales channels made it nearly impossible to obtain products for testing, thus preventing verification of alleged infringements. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing procedural requirements and setting strict deadlines for filing the main action.
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France and Mul-T-Lock Suisse
In this preliminary objection case (UPC_CFI_702/2024), the UPC Division Locale de Paris addressed a challenge by Mul-T-Lock regarding its jurisdiction over national designations of EP 4153830 in non-unitary states like Switzerland and Spain. The Court rejected the objection, affirming that the UPC maintains competence to handle these cases. This decision reinforces the principle of centralized dispute resolution within the UPC framework, promoting legal certainty for patent holders.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
In this UPC case involving packaging technology, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued an order setting out the procedural path forward for both infringement and revocation claims. The court decided to combine the two actions into a single proceeding, citing efficiency and the benefit of a unified interpretation by the same judicial panel. This decision streamlines complex patent litigation, allowing claimants and defendants to address validity and infringement simultaneously.
DATA DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v.DOYTEC AUTOMATION LTD.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC granted an order to preserve evidence in a dispute concerning item dispensing technology. Data Detection Technologies Ltd. sought to seize and document a competitor's machine (C-1012) displayed at a trade fair, alleging it infringed EP 2569713. The Court found that DDT had sufficiently established its patent rights and presented reasonable evidence of potential infringement, allowing the urgent ex-parte measure to proceed.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom S.R.L.
Prinoth S.p.A., a global leader in snow grooming vehicles, successfully obtained an urgent provisional measures order from the UPC CFI against Xelom S.R.L. The court authorized inspection of premises and seizure of the disputed electric snow groomer ('Snow Cat'). This decision is significant as it allows patent holders to secure evidence early in litigation when infringement is suspected but not yet proven.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully sued NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK for infringing EP 2 028 981, a patent covering juice extractors. The court found infringement regarding the contested embodiment (slow juicers). Crucially, the decision also provided significant legal guidance on intertemporal law in UPC proceedings, clarifying when UPCA rules apply versus national laws for past and ongoing infringing acts. This case is important for practitioners navigating the transition period of the Unified Patent Court.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for infringing European Patent EP 2 028 981, which covers a juice extractor. The court found infringement and issued significant remedies, including orders to destroy and recall the infringing products in various EU member states. Beyond the core finding of infringement, the decision provided important guidance on how intertemporal law applies within the UPC framework, particularly concerning acts that span before and after the UPCA's entry into force.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses procedural motions regarding the exchange of further written pleadings in a patent infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 755 901 B1. The court ruled against both the claimant (Hartmann Packaging A/S) and the respondents (Omni-Pac GmbH). The ruling underscores strict adherence to the UPC's procedural timetable, requiring parties to utilize their allotted submissions or formally request additional pleadings under R. 36 VerfO with strong justification.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC decision addressed a complex provisional measures case concerning evidence preservation for an infringement action involving hybrid generators. The court upheld the initial order allowing inspection and data seizure but made key adjustments regarding access to sensitive materials. Most significantly, the court ruled that the respondent was no longer obligated to pay the daily coercive fines previously imposed due to non-compliance with IT disclosure requirements.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court rejected a request by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. to introduce evidence regarding a Chinese patent's invalidation decision into the UPC proceedings. The court found that the late submission and failure to provide the document in German prejudiced the preparation for the upcoming oral hearing. This case highlights the strict procedural requirements of the UPC, emphasizing timely submissions and adherence to the official language of the proceedings.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG, Himson Engineering Private Limited
This UPC decision addressed a public access application filed by Bhagat Textile Engineers seeking access to documents in an infringement and revocation action. The court ultimately denied the access request, emphasizing that while transparency is important, it must be balanced against the integrity of the judicial process and the procedural rights of the parties involved. The ruling highlights the high bar for 'public interest' when a party seeks information primarily to support its own litigation strategy.
Per Aarsleff A/S v.IMS Robotics GmbH and IMS Robotics Nordic A/S
In a procedural decision concerning EP 2 129 956, the Unified Patent Court allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This case highlights how UPC proceedings can be concluded amicably through mutual consent, even when complex actions are involved. Practitioners should note that while the main dispute was dropped, the court still managed the procedural aspects, including setting the value in dispute and ordering partial reimbursement of court fees.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
In this UPC case, Rematec GmbH & Co KG sued Europe Forestry B.V. for infringing its patent covering a grinding mill used for crushing wood chips. The court ultimately declared the European Patent EP 2 548 648 fully invalid across several member states. This decision highlights the rigorous scrutiny applied by the UPC regarding inventive step, particularly when features are found to be obvious in light of existing technical literature.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V. successfully obtained a procedural order from the UPC Court of First Instance to preserve evidence against P.T.S. Machinery B.V. The case revolves around EP4171996, a patent covering modular trailer systems and jack cradles used for heavy lifting. Mammoet alleged that PTS was producing and supplying an infringing 'Mechanical Construction' component. The court granted the application, compelling PTS to provide access to its premises and digital data under strict conditions.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Bhagat Textile Engineers against Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG. The core issue was whether exceptional circumstances existed to halt the enforcement of a prior infringement judgment and associated penalties. The court ruled against Bhagat, emphasizing that merely claiming parallel proceedings or 'considerable doubts' is insufficient. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC appeals.
ArcelorMittal v.Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA, XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl, E-LAIN SAS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by multiple XPENG-related entities and others to change the language of an infringement case from French (or German) to English. The court granted this application, citing fairness and convenience, noting that English was the patent's granting language and widely used among the parties. Crucially, the Claimant, ArcelorMittal, was ordered to provide translations of its Statement of Claim at its own expense. This decision sets a practical precedent regarding procedural efficiency in multinational UPC cases.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, Rune Eilertsen, Infotech Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS
This UPC decision concerns the confirmation of an ex parte order for evidence preservation related to EP 4 238 202 B1 (hybrid generators). The court reviewed whether the initial measure should be upheld or revoked, particularly after procedural delays. By confirming the original order, the court affirmed that the applicant provided adequate justification and material to warrant the scope of the provisional measures.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case Oerlikon v Himson addresses key strategic issues in a complex infringement and revocation action concerning textile machinery. The Court confirmed that both parties' claims are narrowly focused on Claim 1, reinforcing the 'front loaded' principle of the UPC system. Furthermore, the court managed evidentiary disputes, allowing for video evidence while restricting late-stage document submissions to maintain procedural efficiency. This decision sets a clear path forward toward an oral hearing in mid-2025.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case UPC_CFI_240/2023 involves Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK (Claimant) against Himson Engineering Private Limited (Respondent) regarding patent EP2145848. The court addressed a scheduling conflict raised by the defendant and subsequently issued an order to postpone the Interim Conference. This highlights the UPC's procedural flexibility in managing complex litigation schedules.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order sets the stage for a complex infringement dispute between C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED and NOVAWELL concerning patent EP2265793. The Court addressed several preliminary motions, dismissing requests for additional witnesses or language changes, while formally defining the scope of the upcoming oral hearing. Crucially, the Judge-Rapporteur established the value of the case at EUR 1 million, paving the way for a detailed examination of patent validity and infringement.
Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co
In this UPC case concerning a cabinet levelling apparatus, Häfele SE & Co KG sought provisional measures against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. The court ultimately denied the request for an injunction, citing that doubts regarding the patent's legal basis could weigh against granting such relief. Despite denying the immediate measure, the court set the disputed value of the patent at EUR 500,000, providing a clear financial benchmark for future proceedings.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order (UPC_CFI_240/2023), Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG addressed its infringement claim against Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding patent EP2145848. The court focused heavily on case management, defining the scope of evidence and arguments for the upcoming oral hearing. Key issues included Himson's counterclaim for revocation, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, and the admissibility of video and testimonial evidence. Due to a general strike in Italy, the interim conference was postponed.
Collomix GmbH v.Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG; Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG; Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC court addressed a motion by Collomix GmbH to submit physical evidence of an allegedly infringing water dosing device (PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät). The respondents argued that such evidence should have been presented at the time of filing the claim. However, the court rejected this argument, citing Rule 172.2 EPGVerfO, which grants the court the power to order the submission of evidence at any point in the proceedings if the claimant asserts a fact and possesses the item. This decision reinforces the flexibility of the UPC's procedural rules regarding evidence presentation, ensuring that necessary preparatory steps are taken without prematurely limiting the scope of proof.
City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v.Maars Holding B.V.
In this UPC Security Application, Maars successfully argued that it required security for legal costs due to concerns over City Glass's financial situation and its non-EU base in India. The Court ruled in favor of Maars, ordering the Indian claimant to provide a deposit of EUR 19,000. This decision highlights the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness for defendants against the need to protect IP rights, while still accommodating international parties.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. And Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited
Cardo Systems successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Asmax and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited regarding the patented fastening device EP 4 240 194. The Court granted the preliminary measure without hearing the defendants, immediately halting their ability to market or use the infringing product across UPC member states. This decision highlights the speed and effectiveness of provisional measures within the Unified Patent Court system for protecting IP rights.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In this provisional measures case, Valeo Electrification sought an injunction against Magna entities regarding the rotary electric machine patent EP 3 320 602 B1. The UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf partially granted the application, allowing the defendants to continue their existing supply obligations to BMW provided they furnish a security deposit of EUR 500,000 by November 21, 2024. This decision highlights the court's balancing act between protecting the patent holder's rights and ensuring business continuity for the defendant.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This UPC Appeal Board decision addressed a motion to admit new evidence in an ongoing infringement case involving SharkNinja and Dyson regarding EP 2 043 492. SharkNinja sought to introduce documents from a US patent litigation, arguing that the opposing party's interpretation of key features was crucial for determining novelty and inventive step. The Appeal Board ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that evidence from other proceedings must meet strict relevance criteria and cannot simply contradict arguments made in the current case.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving infringement and revocation, the central patent (EP 3 225 320 B1) was fully revoked by the EPO Board of Appeal prior to the final hearing. Consequently, the Local Division of Munich allowed the claimant to withdraw its infringement suit and declared the infringement proceedings terminated. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed as moot. This decision highlights how external events, such as patent revocation, can fundamentally alter the trajectory of UPC litigation.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
In this UPC case, i-mop GmbH successfully obtained a default judgment against ARCORA International GmbH regarding the infringement of its floor cleaning device patent (EP 3 760 094). The court found that ARCORA's product infringed the patent claims and granted preliminary relief, including damages and an injunction. Although the case was ultimately concluded due to partial withdrawal by i-mop, the ruling serves as a significant precedent regarding default judgments in UPC infringement proceedings.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
This UPC appeal case centered on procedural disputes regarding the scope of arguments and the admissibility of new evidence in a patent infringement/validity matter concerning vacuum cleaner technology. Dyson sought to have certain grounds for invalidity disregarded by the Board of Appeal, while SharkNinja attempted to introduce late-filed US documents (FBD 27 and FBD 28) as supporting evidence. The Board ultimately rejected Dyson's procedural request but dismissed SharkNinja's attempts to introduce new material, emphasizing strict adherence to established appeal procedures.
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.