Medical_Devices — European UPC Patent Cases
225 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 8 · 225 total
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural matters, specifically an application for a cost decision and related requests for confidentiality protection. The Court has signaled its intent to grant Meril unlimited access to the costs proceedings while ensuring that restrictions under Rule 262.2 RoP prevent disclosure of confidential information to third parties or the public. This ruling highlights the delicate balance UPC courts must strike between transparency in litigation and protecting sensitive commercial data.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural matters within a larger infringement action concerning EP 3 646 825. The court lifted all existing deadlines related to the cost decision and confidentiality protection applications, following arguments from the defendants regarding the impossibility of compliance under provisional protective measures. This ruling is significant as it provides necessary procedural relief, ensuring that parties can properly engage in ancillary proceedings without being unduly constrained by conflicting interim orders.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. initiated a revocation action against VMR Products LLC challenging European patent EP 3 626 092, which covers vaporizer devices (electronic cigarettes). The core argument centered on the lack of inventive step regarding features like a translucent cartomizer body. The UPC Central Division ultimately dismissed the revocation action, upholding the validity of the patent. This decision reinforces the high bar for demonstrating non-obviousness in technical fields, particularly when addressing perceived design improvements.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This order addresses a procedural dispute regarding the costs associated with public access requests to court documents within UPC proceedings. The judge-rapporteur clarified that Article 69 UPCA, which governs cost allocation, is not applicable when parties are consulted by the judge-rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. This ruling sets a clear boundary on who can seek reimbursement of legal costs in these specific procedural contexts, emphasizing that public access requests do not automatically trigger standard cost recovery mechanisms.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In a case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom Inc., the Unified Patent Court proceedings were brought for infringement and revocation of EP3977921. However, both parties mutually consented to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The UPC subsequently declared the entire proceeding closed, highlighting how procedural agreements can lead to early closure in complex patent disputes.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
In this UPC case, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. initiated an infringement action against Dexcom Inc., which included a counterclaim for revocation of EP3977921. However, both parties subsequently consented to the withdrawal of all actions. The Court formally declared the proceedings closed based on this mutual agreement. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing cases to be terminated amicably before substantive rulings are made. It serves as a reminder for practitioners that case closure can occur through consent withdrawals rather than litigation outcomes.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
This UPC case involved an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP3977921, related to diabetes care technology. Both the Claimant (Abbott) and the Defendants (Dexcom entities) mutually agreed to withdraw all actions. The Court formally declared the proceedings closed based on this consent, avoiding a substantive ruling on infringement or validity.
De heer v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
In this UPC case, the court addressed a claim of infringement related to Mandibular Advancement Devices (MAD). The claimant sought relief against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV regarding patents covering these medical devices. The court ultimately dismissed both the literal and equivalent infringement claims. This decision reinforces established principles regarding patent scope interpretation under Article 69 EPC, particularly emphasizing that functional equivalence is necessary for an equivalence finding.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a significant revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. successfully challenged and obtained the complete revocation of European patent EP 3 430 921 B1 against Juul Labs International, Inc. The UPC Central Division ruled that the patent was invalid across eight member states, including Germany and France. This decision underscores the effectiveness of the UPC in handling complex validity challenges related to vaping technology patents. It serves as a strong precedent for patentees seeking to challenge the scope or validity of granted European patents within the unified system.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed both Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom (and affiliates) to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims regarding EP 4 087 195. The withdrawal was permitted because neither party demonstrated a legitimate interest in forcing the continuation of the litigation. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to terminate complex patent disputes by mutual consent, provided no vested interests are at stake.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a cost determination proceeding initiated by Edwards Lifesciences against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. While the court found that the respondents were liable for the procedural costs totaling EUR 244,000 (including amounts agreed upon in earlier proceedings), it definitively rejected the claimant's request to have these costs paid with interest. The ruling clarifies a critical distinction within UPC procedure: while damages claims may include compensation for time value of money, standard cost reimbursement does not automatically carry an interest component unless explicitly provided by law.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for an extension of time, rather than the merits of the underlying patent dispute. Menarini sought an extension to file its statement of response due to technical difficulties with the Case Management System (CMS). The Court dismissed the request, clarifying that automatic extensions under R.301.2 RoP apply when electronic filing is temporarily impossible, making a discretionary order superfluous.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request by Menarini to re-establish confidentiality protections for technical information during the appeal phase. The court found that these requests were redundant because the original CFI order already mandated continuous protection and restricted access to specific parties. While the formal R. 262A RoP requests were dismissed, the Court confirmed that the existing restrictions on accessing confidential documents would remain in force.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories (and associated entities)
This UPC decision in Düsseldorf concerns the mutual withdrawal of a patent infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against various Abbott entities, alongside a corresponding counterclaim for revocation. The parties agreed to terminate all proceedings, including the application to amend the patent in suit. While the core dispute was resolved through consent, the court issued specific orders regarding the reimbursement of court fees, setting the value in dispute at EUR 4 million each.
Insulet Corporation v.Eoflow Co Ltd
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application for costs following the dismissal of an intervention request. Insulet Corporation attempted to recover legal costs from Eoflow Co Ltd after its intervention was rejected in a parallel provisional measures proceeding concerning the patch-insulin pump EP4201327. The Court dismissed the cost claim, ruling that the initial order refusing intervention did not constitute a principle decision on costs and that Eoflow could not be treated as an 'unsuccessful party' at that stage.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH
In a significant decision for the medical device sector, the UPC Central Division rejected revocation actions against EP 4 074 373. The patent, which covers MRI-safe magnetic elements in implantable devices, was ultimately maintained, albeit in an amended form (Auxiliary Request 0a). This ruling underscores the importance of successful amendment strategies when facing validity challenges before the UPC.
Insulet Corporation v.MENARINI DIAGNOSTICS s.r.l.
This UPC decision addresses a complex costs dispute arising from an intervention request in parallel provisional measures proceedings. Insulet Corporation sought reimbursement for legal costs incurred while defending against Menarini Diagnostics' attempt to intervene in the main infringement case. The Court upheld Insulet's claim, establishing that even parties not formally named can be subject to cost awards if they are deemed 'successful.' This ruling clarifies the scope of recoverable costs related to intervention proceedings under the UPC Rules of Procedure.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order in the Edwards Lifesciences v Meril case focused on managing the complex infringement and revocation proceedings. Key issues included the claimant's request to amend its claims (e.g., including Romania) and the defendants' requests for a court expert. The Court set deadlines for parties to provide technical evidence, cost estimates, and clarified procedural steps moving toward the oral hearing.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In this revocation action, Tandem Diabetes Care challenged the validity of a patent covering an ambulatory drug infusion system held by Roche. The claimants argued that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step based on various prior art documents. However, the UPC Central Division dismissed the revocation action, ruling that the combination of cited prior art was insufficient to invalidate the patent. This decision reinforces the high bar required for challenging established patents in the UPC.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V.
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a preliminary objection raised by Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. against Visibly Inc.'s infringement claim concerning patent EP3918974. The defendants argued that claims based on director liability or tort were outside the UPC's competence. The Court rejected this argument, confirming that jurisdiction extends to such claims under Article 7(2) of Brussels I recast and establishing competence via Article 33(1)(a) UPCA due to the service being offered in Germany. This ruling clears the path for the main infringement proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by multiple defendants to stay infringement proceedings pending decisions from the EPO Opposition Division. Despite an accelerated opposition hearing being scheduled at the EPO, the Court ruled against rescheduling its own oral hearing. The decision emphasizes the need for the UPC to maintain its timeline while acknowledging the parallel proceedings, setting the stage for the main merits hearing.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diagnostics GmbH et al. (multiple entities)
In a significant ruling, the UPC Paris Local Division revoked European patent EP3831282, which covered remote monitoring systems for diabetes management. The decision dismissed all infringement claims brought by DexCom against Abbott's FreeStyle Libre 3 products and associated applications (LibreLinkUp). Beyond the substantive finding of invalidity, the court reinforced procedural strictness, rejecting late-stage attempts to introduce new grounds for revocation.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
This UPC Order addressed procedural matters in a complex infringement and revocation case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril Life Sciences. The Court confirmed the case value and maintained the scheduled oral hearing date despite concurrent proceedings at the EPO Opposition Division. Crucially, the court ruled to exclude late-filed attacks on inventive step that were not part of the initial claims or defenses, reinforcing principles of procedural fairness in UPC litigation.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In a significant revocation action, NJOY Netherlands B.V. successfully challenged VMR Products LLC's patent EP 3 456 214, which covers electronic vaporizers/e-cigarettes. The UPC Central Division found that the patent lacked inventive step and ordered its complete revocation across all relevant territories. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules regarding amendments and evidence in complex validity challenges before the Unified Patent Court.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Logistics B.V.
In this procedural order, DexCom sought to introduce a decision from the Munich Regional Court concerning its parent patent (EP'158) into the ongoing UPC infringement action regarding EP'282. While the UPC acknowledged that case management powers are available at late stages, the court ultimately dismissed DexCom's application. The ruling emphasized that merely referencing related proceedings is insufficient; the external decision must be directly relevant to the patent in suit and its validity on the merits.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation sought a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. regarding the alleged infringement of its fluid dispensing device patent (EP4201327), which covers advanced insulin pumps. However, the UPC Court of First Instance denied the application for provisional measures. The court determined that significant doubts existed concerning the novelty and validity of Insulet's patent in light of prior art disclosures, thereby preventing the immediate granting of an injunction.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation sought provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics regarding the infringement of its insulin patch pump patent (EP 4201327). The Court dismissed Insulet's application, finding that the necessary cumulative evidence—including a sufficient degree of certainty regarding validity and imminent infringement—was not met. This decision underscores the high procedural bar required to obtain interim relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when faced with multiple validity challenges.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB, Vab-Logistik UAB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a stay of infringement proceedings pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO. The court affirmed the legal basis for such a stay under Art. 33(10) UPCA, noting that it is crucial to prevent conflicting judgments between the UPC and the EPO regarding patent validity. Despite recognizing the merits of the request, the Court ultimately referred the case back to the Court of First Instance (CFI), allowing the CFI to exercise its discretion with full knowledge of the infringement proceedings' status.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., etc.)
In a procedural order concerning EP 4 026 488, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf decided to proceed with a joint hearing of the infringement action brought by DexCom against Abbott and its subsidiaries, alongside the counterclaim for revocation. This decision prioritizes efficiency, ensuring that both validity and infringement are assessed under a single, uniform interpretation by the same judicial panel. The court also mandated the allocation of a technically qualified judge (TQJ) to manage the case effectively.
Verweerder (unnamed in the provided text, but implied to be the party holding the patent) v.OrthoApnea S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision focused primarily on procedural matters concerning the admissibility of new arguments during an infringement case involving a sleep splint device. The court ruled that while parties are generally expected to present their full case early, new arguments can be admitted if circumstances permit and the opposing party has a chance to respond. Ultimately, the appeal against the review judgment was dismissed, upholding the lower court's findings on procedural grounds.
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.