Medical_Devices — European UPC Patent Cases
225 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 8 · 225 total
Meril GmbH v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent 1 (Helsingborg)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues, specifically concerning public access to the register and the rules governing representation in court. The court established that an individual holding a high-level management position within a party cannot simultaneously act as their authorized representative before the UPC. Additionally, it firmly ruled against awarding compensation for costs related to requests for public access to pleadings, setting clear boundaries on procedural expenses.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for provisional measures in an infringement case involving insulin pump technology. Insulet sought disclosure and injunctions against EOFlow regarding the alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327. While settlement discussions occurred, the court issued a detailed order setting out specific requests, including mandatory disclosure of origin and distribution channels from EOFlow, backed by significant periodic penalty payments for non-compliance. The ruling reinforces core legal principles governing claim construction and cost allocation within the UPC framework.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC provisional measures case, Aesculap AG sought interim relief against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding EP 2 892 442 B1. Although the core dispute is ongoing, the respondent challenged the patent's validity (novelty and inventive step). The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled that given the technical complexity and the challenge to validity, it was necessary to appoint an additional technically qualified judge to assist the panel early in the proceedings.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC Cost Decision addressed the reimbursement claims filed by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against Tandem Diabetes Care entities following a revocation action. The court firmly rejected the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings based on a pending appeal, emphasizing that such appeals cannot unduly delay the successful party's right to prompt financial settlement. Ultimately, the court determined the final costs at EUR 117,741.62 after carefully adjusting travel expenses while validating representation fees within the applicable ceiling.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In this cost determination case, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH for reimbursement of legal costs against Tandem Diabetes Care. The court firmly rejected the respondents' attempt to stay the proceedings based merely on a pending appeal on the merits, reinforcing the principle that successful parties should not be unduly delayed in receiving cost awards. After reviewing and adjusting various expense claims, including travel costs, the Court ultimately granted the requested compensation of EUR 117,741.62.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a complex costs determination application arising from an infringement and revocation action concerning avalanche search devices. The court provided crucial guidance on the separability of costs, confirming that expenses incurred during preliminary injunction proceedings are distinct and separately reimbursable, even if they precede the main infringement suit. This ruling clarifies how cost ceilings apply across different procedural stages within the UPC framework, offering significant clarity for practitioners managing multi-stage litigation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed Meril's application for suspensive effect against a preliminary infringement judgment issued by the Munich Local Division. Edwards, the patent holder, had secured an injunction prohibiting the sale and use of specific prosthetic heart valve systems. Meril argued that the initial decision was erroneous and requested a stay of enforcement. The Court ultimately rejected this request, affirming the principle that UPC decisions are generally enforceable while appeals are pending.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH; Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.; Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich relates to an ongoing infringement action involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril entities concerning European patent EP 3669828. The claimant sought an authentic paper copy of a prior decision for enforcement purposes, which was granted by the court. This ruling is significant as it streamlines the administrative process necessary to move from judgment to execution within the UPC framework.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order in the EOFLOW v. Insulet UPC case marks a significant step toward trial preparation. The Court closed the written phase and scheduled an Interim Conference to focus on claim construction, particularly regarding the term 'pass through'. Furthermore, the Court strictly enforced rules of evidence by deeming US patent '159 inadmissible, emphasizing the need for parties to consolidate their arguments early in UPC proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril Life Sciences addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most pending applications but issued a specific protective measure regarding sensitive legal billing details. This decision highlights the practical application of confidentiality rules (Rule 262A RoP) in complex litigation, particularly concerning attorney-client privilege and fee structures.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most procedural applications, effectively closing related workflows. Crucially, despite dismissing the main cost decision, the Judge issued a specific protective measure, ordering both Edwards Lifesciences and Erik Krahbichler not to disclose Meril's marked confidential data.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences sued Meril entities for infringing its prosthetic heart valve patent (EP 3 669 828 B2). The UPC Local Division Munich issued a comprehensive decision, granting provisional damages of EUR 663,000 and ordering the defendants to cease infringement. Beyond the merits, the court provided important procedural guidance on suing multiple related entities under UPCA rules and applying EPO's problem-solution approach in litigation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences sought protection for sensitive financial details related to its costs in an ongoing infringement action. The UPC Local Division Munich granted the request under Rule 262.2 RoP, recognizing that while proceedings are generally public, there is a legitimate interest in keeping negotiation fees and expert invoices confidential. This decision provides a crucial procedural safeguard for parties involved in complex litigation, balancing transparency with commercial sensitivity.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion regarding simultaneous interpretation during oral hearings in an infringement case involving diabetes technology. The respondents, who were non-German speakers, requested court-ordered translation to ensure their right to be heard given the complexity of the technical and legal issues. The Local Division acknowledged the need for accessibility but ultimately denied the request that the costs be covered by the proceedings. This ruling reinforces the principle that while procedural fairness is paramount, the financial burden of specialized services like simultaneous interpretation generally rests with the requesting party unless explicitly mandated otherwise.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this significant UPC revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. challenged the validity of Juul Labs International Inc.'s vaporization device patent (EP 3 504 989). While the Claimant succeeded in challenging the original scope of the patent, the Court ultimately allowed the Defendant's application to amend the claims. This decision demonstrates the complex interplay between revocation proceedings and claim amendments within the UPC framework, resulting in a modified maintenance of the patent.
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH; S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
In a significant decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Biolitec's attempt to secure an injunction against Lightguide companies concerning their laser fiber products. The court emphasized that provisional relief requires demonstrating immediate and irreparable harm that cannot wait for a full merits hearing. By dismissing the appeal, the UPC reinforced strict procedural requirements for seeking interim protection, particularly regarding the substantiation of market damage claims.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought provisional measures against Speed Care Mineral GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of its patent on clay-based hemostatic agents. The UPC Local Division in Hamburg dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to provide sufficient certainty that the Defendant's product contained a binder element as required by the patent claims. This decision highlights the high evidentiary threshold required for applicants seeking urgent relief like preliminary injunctions under the UPC framework.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
This UPC order addresses procedural rectifications requested by Meril GmbH in the infringement case concerning Edwards Lifesciences' heart valve patent (EP 3 646 825). The defendants sought corrections to technical descriptions, jurisdictional statements, and references to prior art/expert opinions within the original decision. The court accepted several of these amendments, ensuring accuracy in the record while maintaining the ongoing nature of the dispute.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal sided with Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., granting an injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The court set aside the initial CFI decision which had found potential added matter in the patent claims. This case highlights the high bar for obtaining preliminary relief while also providing clarity on how general injunctions can be justified based on a single type of infringement, making it crucial reading for medical device IP practitioners.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Respondent 1 / SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a critical procedural issue concerning representation before the court. The Court ruled that self-representation is invalid for lawyers and European Patent Attorneys when they are parties to the case, reinforcing strict due process requirements. Additionally, it clarified limitations on corporate representatives acting for legal entities if they lack independence. Consequently, the Court did not dismiss the access request but instead granted a 14-day grace period for the respondents to appoint proper authorized counsel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation before the court. The ruling firmly establishes that self-representation is invalid for lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are parties to the proceedings. Additionally, it reinforces the principle that corporate representatives holding high-level management roles cannot represent their companies due to independence requirements. The court provided a temporary grace period of 14 days for the involved parties to rectify these procedural defects by appointing proper legal counsel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Meril GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation in the Unified Patent Court, specifically concerning public access requests and party standing. The court ruled that self-representation is invalid for both lawyers/patent attorneys acting as parties and corporate officers holding high-level management roles. This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for legal independence under the UPC Agreement. The decision did not resolve the underlying merits of the case but instead issued an exceptional order, granting the involved parties a short window to appoint proper representatives and remedy procedural defects.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
BSN Medical GmbH initiated infringement proceedings against Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V. concerning European patents EP 3 831 350 and EP 3 033 058. Rather than proceeding to a full trial, the parties successfully reached an out-of-court settlement agreement. The UPC court confirmed this agreement, ensuring that the sensitive terms of the settlement remain confidential, providing a clear example of how settlements are formalized within the unified patent system.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation initiated an infringement action against Meril GmbH and its affiliates concerning European patent EP 3669828. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a procedural order scheduling the case for an oral hearing on February 11, 2025. This initial step moves the complex dispute from filing to active litigation in Munich. This case is significant as it involves major players in the medical device industry utilizing the UPC framework.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal of all claims in the case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom International Limited regarding patent EP4070727. Both parties mutually consented to drop their infringement and revocation actions. The court subsequently declared the proceedings closed, setting the value of the cases at EUR 4 million.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural order issued on January 29, 2025, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed all parties in the dispute between Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc. to withdraw their respective claims for infringement and revocation concerning patent EP4070727. While the substantive dispute was dropped, the court addressed procedural matters, setting the value of the cases at EUR 4 million and ordering a partial reimbursement of court fees.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal of all claims in the case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc. Both parties mutually consented to drop their infringement claim and counterclaims for revocation regarding EP4070727. The court formally closed the proceedings, noting that no cost decision was required.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (jointly referred to as 'the Abbott companies')
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted DexCom, Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiaries. Concurrently, the Abbott companies agreed to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. This mutual withdrawal resulted in the closure of the proceedings, meaning the patent EP 3 435 866 remains fully in force across all relevant territories. The decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding withdrawals during appeal.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (collectively 'the Abbott companies')
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal granted DexCom Inc.'s request to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and associated companies. This withdrawal followed mutual consent from both parties, allowing the court to declare all proceedings closed. The decision is significant as it reinforces the flexibility of the UPC system regarding case closure when parties agree, while also providing a clear procedural path for fee reimbursement.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed procedural applications related to costs and confidentiality in a case involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether the proceedings concerning confidential information should be stayed pending an appeal decision. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the request for a partial stay of cost proceedings, which triggered the closure of the related workflow regarding confidentiality.
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.