Medical_Devices — European UPC Patent Cases
225 decisions indexed
Page 6 of 8 · 225 total
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott GmbH, etc.)
In a procedural order concerning the dispute between DexCom, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories regarding EP 4 026 488, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted an extension of time for filing key pleadings. Although the Defendants did not consent to the delay, the Court found that granting the extension was justified on grounds of fairness and equity. This order highlights the procedural flexibility available within the UPC framework when balancing strict timelines against the practical needs of complex litigation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Panel rejected the Defendants' requests to compel the European Commission to provide details on ongoing antitrust investigations against the Claimant. The Court determined that since both parties confirmed the EC procedure was still in a preliminary fact-gathering stage without a formal investigation, there was no relevant new information to be obtained at this time. This decision underscores the court's focus on the core patent litigation while managing procedural requests for external regulatory data.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh
Edwards Lifesciences successfully sued Meril Life Sciences in the UPC Local Division Munich regarding infringement of its patented SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve. The court found infringement and issued a comprehensive order, including the destruction of infringing devices and substantial preliminary damages. This ruling reinforces the strength of patent rights within the Unified Patent Court system, particularly for critical medical technologies like TAVI.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Claimant) sued Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Respondents) for infringement of EP 3646825. The Defendants sought to compel the UPC to request information from the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant's patent practices. However, the Panel rejected this request, finding that the preliminary nature of the EC proceedings meant no formal investigation had been opened. This decision underscores the Court's focus on procedural efficiency and its reliance on established facts presented during hearings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addressed applications filed by Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, seeking information about ongoing antitrust investigations by the European Commission against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The Court ultimately rejected these requests, finding that the Claimant's assertion—that the EC procedure was still in a preliminary fact-gathering stage without a formal investigation—was undisputed. This decision keeps the main infringement proceedings moving forward without external interference from EU competition authorities.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a significant revocation action, the UPC Central Division revoked European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1 concerning vaporization device systems (aerosol cartridges). The decision not only resulted in the complete invalidation of the patent across multiple UPCA territories but also provided important procedural guidance on how courts handle applications to amend patents during revocation proceedings. This case underscores the UPC's power to enforce validity challenges while managing complex technical and legal submissions.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. initiated a revocation action against Juul Labs, Inc., challenging the validity of EP 3 504 991 B1, which covers vaporization device cartridges. The UPC Central Division ultimately dismissed the revocation action, upholding the patent's validity. The decision reinforced fundamental principles of European patent law, particularly stressing that inventive step must be assessed objectively by a person skilled in the art, independent of the parties' subjective views.
SWAT Medical AB v.Meril Italy S.r.l.
This UPC decision addressed an application for public access to court records in ongoing revocation proceedings concerning a medical device patent. The applicant, SWAT Medical AB, sought access as a competitor interested in the validity of the patented technology. The Court ruled that the general principle of transparency applies, granting access to all pleadings and evidence. However, it also granted leave to appeal and suspended the order's effect, setting up potential future legal challenges regarding the scope of public disclosure.
Abbott Logistics B.V. v.DexCom, Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Court rejected Abbott's request to amend its claims based on the release of a new version of its LibreLinkUp application. Abbott argued that the timing was necessitated by commercially sensitive information regarding the product launch. However, the Court prioritized the principles of efficiency and celerity inherent in UPC proceedings, finding that allowing such an amendment so close to the oral hearing would unreasonably hinder DexCom's ability to prepare a defense.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for expedition rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. EOFlow sought to accelerate the appeal process to facilitate the joinder of parallel actions before oral hearings. However, the court rejected this request, finding that EOFlow's delay in filing its statement of grounds prejudiced the respondent, Insulet. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to procedural fairness and proportionality when managing timelines.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd.; Meril GmbH; Meril Italy S.r.l.
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sought an extension of time to file its rejoinder in a revocation action concerning EP 4 151 181. The Court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while efficiency is important, it cannot override the fundamental principle of fair trial. This decision reinforces the UPC's cautious approach to granting procedural extensions, ensuring balance and fairness between parties.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This preliminary UPC decision addressed several procedural motions within an ongoing infringement action concerning diabetes monitoring technology. The Court firmly rejected the Claimant's attempts to expand its claims or shift the burden of proof by requesting information, emphasizing adherence to the front-loaded nature of UPCA proceedings. By dismissing these applications and setting clear deadlines for expert evidence and oral hearings, the court moved the case closer to substantive trial.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH / Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision focused solely on the allocation of legal costs following an initial case where the defendant submitted a declaration of cessation and undertaking. The court affirmed that while such declarations often favor the claimant, Meril was ultimately held liable for the appeal costs due to its procedural conduct in the first instance. This ruling reinforces the principle that cost allocation under Art. 69 EPGÜ considers not only the final outcome but also the degree of success or failure throughout the proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This procedural order addressed an application by Eoflow Co Ltd to intervene in a provisional measures case brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. The Court ultimately dismissed the intervention request. The ruling emphasized the UPC's commitment to efficiency and speedy decision-making, particularly in urgent interim injunction proceedings, even when procedural rules allow for third-party participation.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
In this procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC dismissed an application by Eoflow Co Ltd to intervene in a dispute between Insulet Corporation and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. The intervener, who manufactured the disputed product, sought to support the defendant against the injunction request. The Court determined that allowing the intervention would excessively slow down the urgent provisional measures proceeding, especially since the intervener was already involved in parallel litigation before the Central Division.
Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters related to an infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox concerning a snow avalanche transceiver (LVS) device protected by EP 3 466 498. The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals regarding interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's decision, but Mammut was ordered to cover additional provisional costs incurred by Ortovox during the appellate process.
Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters within a patent infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox regarding an LVS device (EP 3 466 498). The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals concerning interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. While the core dispute was about patent validity/infringement, the ruling ultimately dismissed Mammut's appeal and ordered them to cover additional provisional costs.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural review concerning the connection joinder of two parallel infringement proceedings involving Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether consolidating the cases would violate principles of proportionality or lead to contradictory rulings. The panel ultimately approved the initial order, finding that the risk of divergent decisions was minimal due to shared judicial oversight across both divisions. This ruling reinforces the UPC's flexibility in case management while maintaining strict adherence to procedural fairness.
SWAT Medical AB v.Meril Italy srl, Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC decision addressed a request for public access to confidential pleadings and evidence within an ongoing revocation action concerning a medical device patent. The applicant, SWAT Medical AB, sought access based on their interest as a competitor in the cardiac implant technology field. However, the Court rejected the application, ruling that general industry involvement is not enough to override the need to protect the integrity of the proceedings and confidential party interests. This case reinforces the high threshold required for third parties seeking document access in UPC litigation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
In this procedural order, the UPC denied a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor) seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in ongoing infringement and counterclaim proceedings. The Court held that while transparency is important, the integrity of the private dispute must be protected until the case concludes. This decision reinforces the principle that requests for public access must be highly specific and demonstrate a direct, plausible interest related to the patent's subject matter.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addressed a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor) seeking access to confidential pleadings and evidence in several UPC cases. The Court ultimately denied this access, emphasizing that while transparency is important, the integrity of ongoing civil litigation must be protected. The ruling clarified that merely being a competitor or investor is insufficient grounds for disclosure when the core patent information is already public.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addressed a request by an applicant (a medical device investor/competitor) seeking broad access to the court's pleadings and evidence in ongoing UPC infringement cases. The Court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that the integrity of private civil litigation must be protected until proceedings conclude. The ruling reinforces the high bar for applicants seeking public disclosure of case materials, requiring a concrete and legitimate interest beyond general competitive curiosity.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
In this procedural order, the UPC denied a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor in medical devices) seeking broad access to all pleadings and evidence across multiple related infringement and counterclaim actions. The Court emphasized that while transparency is vital, the integrity of ongoing civil litigation must be protected from external interference. Since the core patent descriptions are already public, the court found no compelling reason for granting wide-ranging access at this stage.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addressed a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor) seeking broad access to pleadings and evidence in ongoing UPC infringement cases. The Court denied this access, emphasizing that the integrity of private civil litigation must be protected until proceedings conclude. While denying the immediate request, the Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing the importance of clarifying the legal interpretation regarding public access under RoP 262.1(b).
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a procedural order concerning a revocation action, the UPC Central Division addressed a late counterclaim for infringement filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. Despite the filing missing the two-month deadline set by Rule 49 RoP, the court granted an exceptional retrospective extension of the time limit. The ruling emphasizes that technical malfunctions beyond a party's reasonable control can justify granting such extensions under UPC rules, providing clarity on procedural fairness in complex litigation.
Dexcom International Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action against EP4070727, the UPC granted Dexcom International Limited leave to amend its counterclaim. Dexcom sought a declaration that their G7-System and G7-Receiver did not infringe the patent after Abbott narrowed its initial claims. The court ruled in favor of Dexcom, accepting that they could not have reasonably anticipated Abbott's claim withdrawal at the outset, thereby allowing them to seek legal certainty regarding non-infringement.
Dexcom International Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the UPC granted Dexcom International Limited leave to amend its counter claim. The amendment sought a declaration that the G7-System and G7-Receiver fall outside the scope of protection of EP 4070727 B1. The court found that Dexcom's timing was reasonable, as they were responding to Abbott's subsequent withdrawal of claims against those specific products, setting a precedent for procedural flexibility in UPC litigation.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Oclean) in the UPC regarding its electric toothbrush patent EP3197316. The case centered on whether Oclean's toothbrushes infringed claims related to providing motivational feedback based on brushing data. Although the court granted the immediate cessation order, it stipulated that main proceedings must be initiated promptly, highlighting the procedural requirements for provisional measures in UPC litigation.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd. in the UPC regarding its electric toothbrush patent (EP3197316). The case centered on alleged infringement by Oclean's toothbrushes, despite previous settlement efforts. This decision underscores the effectiveness of provisional measures in swiftly addressing ongoing market infringements within the unified European patent system.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In a significant preliminary order, the UPC Local Division Hamburg rejected the request by Tandem Diabetes Care to stay an infringement action concerning its t:slim X2 insulin pump. The court emphasized the efficiency of the UPC system, stating that it is appropriate for the local division to hear both the infringement claim and the pending revocation actions simultaneously. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural delays should not impede the pursuit of patent rights when a joint hearing can ensure a uniform legal outcome.
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.