Medical_Devices — European UPC Patent Cases
225 decisions indexed
Page 8 of 8 · 225 total
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825, the UPC Central Division addressed a complex procedural issue regarding subsequent patent amendments. The Court ruled that while it possesses discretionary power to admit these late requests, this must be done fairly and without prejudicing the opposing party's right of defence. This decision highlights the delicate balance between allowing patentees to refine their claims and ensuring due process in UPC litigation.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application filed by Advanced Bionics to change the language of the infringement action from German to English, citing international business operations and parallel proceedings. The Court rejected this request, holding that strategic choices or internal group coordination do not automatically satisfy the 'reasons of fairness' required for a language change under the UPC Rules of Procedure. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests must demonstrate a concrete disadvantage directly affecting the defense in the specific case, rather than merely reflecting global corporate strategy.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
In this UPC case concerning diabetes care technology, the court addressed multiple procedural challenges raised by defendants seeking to change the language of the proceedings from German to English. The claimants argued that such a change was not permissible under the EPC or Rules of Procedure. Ultimately, the court dismissed all requests for a language change, primarily due to technical failures in meeting strict filing deadlines, thereby maintaining the German language as the official procedural language.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In this UPC case concerning diabetes care technology, the court addressed procedural challenges raised by several defendants seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The claimants argued that the procedural language was fixed and could not be changed against their will. The court ultimately dismissed all requests for a language change, citing strict rules regarding filing deadlines and the lack of legal grounds for altering the established procedure.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by the defendants for an extension to file their Statement of Defence (SoD). The defendants argued that the recent change in the language of proceedings from German to English justified the delay. However, the court rejected this request, emphasizing that deadline extensions must be granted only under exceptional circumstances. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining procedural efficiency while acknowledging the need for fair trial rights.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril GmbH addressed requests for an in-person hearing and state-provided simultaneous interpretation. The claimant ultimately withdrew these demands, agreeing instead to a video conference with privately hired interpreters. The court closed the workstream, confirming that private arrangements are permissible under specific rules.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Tandem Diabetes Care to extend its deadline for filing a defense in an action for declaration of non-infringement against Roche. The Court ultimately denied the extension, emphasizing that while flexibility is required under UPC rules, extensions must be based on objective difficulties preventing timely submission, not merely on strategic concerns related to preliminary objections or parallel proceedings. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural deadlines unless exceptional circumstances are proven.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH to extend its deadline for filing a defense in a revocation action against Tandem Diabetes Care. Roche argued that the pending preliminary objection made timely submissions potentially useless and costly. The Court ultimately denied the extension, emphasizing that while flexibility is allowed under Rule 9 RoP, extensions must be justified by an objective difficulty in preparing a proper defense, not merely by procedural uncertainty.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC appellate decision concerns a dispute over court fees in an appeal filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The original case involved infringement allegations related to heart valve prostheses. The current ruling focuses purely on procedural matters, specifically determining the correct fee for the appeal based on the nature of the underlying decision (an order concerning provisional measures). The court ultimately ordered the appellants to pay a remaining balance of €9,500.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Newyu,Inc., etc.)
This procedural order in the DexCom v. Abbott case addressed the complexities of managing deadlines when multiple defendants are involved. The UPC granted an extension and aligned the Statement of Defence filing date for all 14 entities based on a mutual agreement between the parties. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach to ensuring fair procedure while accommodating the logistical challenges presented by large, multi-jurisdictional litigation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order in the Abbott v. Dexcom case addresses complexities arising from service issues across multiple defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur, utilizing UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), granted an extension and aligned the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence for all three Dexcom entities. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach to ensuring fair procedural timelines in multi-defendant infringement actions.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order in Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc. confirms the ongoing infringement action concerning EP4070727, a patent related to diabetes care technology. The court accepted the parties' agreement to synchronize the filing dates for the Statements of Defence (SoD) for both defendants. This decision highlights how UPC proceedings prioritize procedural efficiency and party cooperation in managing complex litigation timelines.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH; Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect concerning a cost order issued by the Court of First Instance (CFI). The CFI had ordered Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences to bear significant costs after the main provisional measures action became moot due to a cease-and-desist undertaking. The Appellants appealed this cost ruling, arguing that further procedural steps would incur unnecessary expenses. However, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected the application for suspensive effect, emphasizing the procedural priority given to timely cost decisions under the Rules of Procedure.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This UPC CFI decision addressed a procedural hurdle in the infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Dexcom Inc. and its international subsidiary. The court accepted evidence that proper service had been effected on the defendant using an Irish process server, thereby resolving a key jurisdictional issue. This ruling allows the main infringement proceedings to move forward, setting a clear timeline for filing the Statement of Claim.
De heer v.OrthoApnea S.L.
In a time-sensitive UPC proceeding, the local division in Brussels granted an urgent request for provisional measures concerning EP 2 331 036. The claimant sought to preserve evidence of infringement by OrthoApnea's NOA product ahead of a major medical symposium. Recognizing the imminent loss of evidence and the urgency, the court allowed the protective measures without hearing the defendant, thereby securing the necessary documentation and products for future litigation.
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.