Mechanical — European UPC Patent Cases
108 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 4 · 108 total
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order concerning the revocation of EP2145848, Oerlikon sought to introduce an eighth auxiliary request (AR8) based on new prior art. The UPC Court ruled against Oerlikon, emphasizing that Rule 30.2 ROP is a restrictive measure designed to prevent endless amendments and maintain procedural efficiency. This decision reinforces the strict requirements for introducing subsequent amendments in patent litigation.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung), the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf decided to consolidate the proceedings between Grundfos Holding A/S and Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court ruled that it would jointly examine both the infringement claim brought by Grundfos and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu. This decision aims to enhance procedural efficiency, ensuring a unified legal interpretation across both claims.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. s.p.a.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH successfully obtained a provisional measure from the UPC Local Division in Milan, securing an order to preserve evidence and inspect premises of Danieli Group companies. The applicant sought this ex-parte order based on strong suspicion that the defendants' products infringed EP 2624977, which covers drivers for steel strip coiling installations. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's willingness to grant early investigative measures when a clear prima facie case of infringement and patent validity exists.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This procedural order addressed an application by Magna entities seeking to replace the allocated technically qualified judge (TQJ) in a provisional measures case against Valeo. Magna argued for a TQJ with specific mechanical engineering expertise. The UPC President dismissed this request, clarifying that parties are generally bound to their appointed judges and cannot object based merely on technical background unless grounds of partiality exist under Article 7.4 UPCA. This decision reinforces the strict procedural rules governing judge allocation within the Unified Patent Court.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In this procedural order concerning an application for provisional measures, the UPC granted Valeo Electrification leave to change its claim regarding EP 3 320 602 B1. The Applicant sought to unconditionally limit a previously 'alternatively' claimed feature in its injunction request. The Court ruled that R. 263 RoP applies fully to PI proceedings and found that this specific limitation was favorable to the Defendants as it narrowed the scope of the potential preliminary injunctions, thus allowing the amendment.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural issues surrounding evidence preservation and inspection under Article 60 UPCA. The court established that the disclosure of preserved evidence is not automatic; it requires balancing the applicant's need for information against the respondent's right to protect confidential trade secrets. Crucially, the ruling clarified the timing mechanism for revocation of measures, linking the deadline to when the evidence is actually disclosed or access is denied. This decision provides vital guidance on managing confidentiality in preliminary UPC proceedings.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order within an infringement action, Oerlikon Textile sought protection for confidential information contained in documents submitted during litigation. The UPC Court addressed two key documents: a settlement agreement (Doc n. 37) and commercial data (Doc n. 38). The court ultimately excluded the highly sensitive settlement agreement from evidence while granting Himson Engineering limited, controlled access to the redacted commercial data under strict confidentiality rules.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
In a case concerning patent infringement related to extrusion technology, KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH successfully withdrew its lawsuit against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG after reaching an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Local Division accepted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings. Crucially, the court ruled that because the litigation was not yet fully concluded—due to pending issues like expert reports and parallel EPO appeal decisions—the claimant was entitled to a partial refund of their court fees.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the claimant (KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH) successfully withdrew its action against the respondent (TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG). The court accepted the withdrawal because both parties had reached an out-of-court settlement and the respondent consented to the claim's termination. Crucially, the court ruled that since the oral proceedings were not yet finalized—due to pending issues like expert reports or EPO appeal outcomes—the claimant was entitled to a partial refund of 20% of the court fees.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
In this procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Court addressed the validity of serving a statement of claim at an international trade fair. The court affirmed that a temporary business presence, such as a booth at a major exhibition, qualifies as a valid place for service of process under UPC rules. This decision is significant for patent practitioners involved in cross-border litigation, confirming practical methods for initiating proceedings against foreign entities.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG initiated infringement proceedings against Bhagat Textile Engineers concerning a textile machinery patent (EP2145848). The case is currently in the procedural phase, with the court addressing key evidentiary issues such as whether the defendant commercialized the infringing machines. The judge issued a detailed order setting strict deadlines for both parties to submit documents related to expert reports, royalties, and settlement proposals. This ruling highlights the UPC's rigorous approach to evidence management before proceeding to trial.
Dyson Technology Ltd. v.SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Ltd. sought interim injunctions against SharkNinja for alleged infringement of EP 2 043 492, a patent covering hand-held vacuum cleaners. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the claims of both parties, meaning no provisional injunction was granted. Beyond the specific outcome, the decision provided important procedural guidance on timing and scope when applying for interim measures in UPC proceedings. This ruling reinforces the need for careful case preparation while acknowledging the practical constraints of summary relief.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.***
This UPC decision addressed a revocation action concerning EP 3 170 639 B1, which ultimately became moot when the patent holder voluntarily withdrew the patent. The court analyzed the equitable distribution of costs, noting that it is generally unfair to charge costs to a patent owner who withdraws immediately upon seeing relevant prior art presented in the lawsuit. Despite this finding regarding equity, the claimant was ordered to bear the procedural costs.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division granted a motion for confidentiality concerning sensitive financial and commercial information provided during cost documentation. The Court found that because the respondent did not object, it was permissible to limit access to these 'redacted' documents exclusively to the respondent's legal counsel. This decision reinforces the flexibility of the Unified Patent Court system to protect trade secrets while maintaining procedural fairness.
Keestrack N.V. v.Geha Laverman B.V.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court granted the mutual request by Keestrack N.V. and Geha Laverman B.V. to withdraw the infringement action (UPC_CFI_379/2023). The court formally closed the case under Rule 265 RoP. Crucially, the panel also ruled in favor of the claimant's request for a partial refund of court fees, awarding 60% reimbursement based on the early stage of the proceedings.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM S.R.L.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a procedural application by the patent proprietor seeking access to expert reports gathered during provisional measures. The Court ruled against Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, finding that the applicant failed to initiate substantive proceedings within the mandatory timeframe established by the initial order. Consequently, the provisional measures were revoked and the request for report disclosure was dismissed. This case underscores the strict procedural requirements governing evidence preservation in UPC actions.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached between Steindl Krantechnik and BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik regarding EP3287315. The court formally validated the terms of the agreement, which was initially filed as an application for provisional measures. Crucially, both parties successfully requested that the details of this confidential settlement be kept private by the UPC.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order addressed an application for review filed by Novawell against a prior evidence preservation (saisie) order initiated by C-Kore Systems Limited regarding EP2265793. Novawell challenged the legality of the seizure, particularly questioning its compliance with French national law and UPC procedures. The Paris Local Division upheld the original order, ruling that the combination of a court-appointed expert and a bailiff satisfied all legal requirements and protected the rights of defense.
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.