Software — European UPC Patent Cases
9 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 9 total
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE INC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses complex jurisdictional challenges raised by multiple respondents against a patent infringement suit. The court ruled that the UPC is incompetent to adjudicate claims concerning alleged infringements occurring outside the EU, specifically naming Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland. Crucially, the claimant failed to meet evidentiary requirements regarding assets within the jurisdiction necessary for certain jurisdictional arguments under Regulation 1215/2012. This case reinforces strict limits on the UPC's international reach.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In this UPC decision, the Court of First Instance addressed a request by Wizart Inc. to impose security for legal costs on Leap Tools Inc., citing the latter's Canadian base and estimated revenue. The court ultimately rejected the motion, emphasizing that simply being non-EU or having moderate revenue is not enough to establish an undue burden of enforcement. Practitioners should note that applicants seeking security must provide detailed evidence regarding foreign law recognition and enforceability, rather than relying on general nationality arguments.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the Local Division Mannheim rejected Centripetal Limited's attempt to reopen an oral hearing and compel Defendants (Keysight Technologies) to provide source code. The Court emphasized that reopening hearings is a rare exception, not a mechanism for introducing new infringement arguments after proceedings have closed. The decision underscores the strict procedural discipline within the UPC, requiring claimants to raise all substantive issues during the written phase.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI L.P, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
KEEEX SAS successfully defended its jurisdiction challenge against a large group of defendants including Adobe and OpenAI. The Paris Local Division rejected all preliminary objections, confirming that evidence gathered by a French judicial officer regarding online content is sufficient to establish territorial competence under UPC rules. This ruling reinforces the importance of local evidentiary procedures in establishing infringement grounds within the unified patent court system.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH / Cisco Systems, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application concerning the extension of deadlines in an ongoing infringement case involving Cisco and Lionra Technologies Ltd., relating to EP 2 201 740. The core issue was balancing the need for adequate time for Cisco to respond, given late access to confidential information, against the urgency required by Lionra. The Court ultimately granted a two-week extension, allowing the appeal process to continue.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
In a procedural matter, the UPC granted an extension of time periods in a complex infringement and revocation case involving Fingon LLC and Samsung Electronics. The Defendants successfully argued that they required additional time to analyze new technical arguments introduced by the Claimant, particularly those stemming from third-party software developers. This decision underscores the Court's willingness to grant extensions when parties demonstrate genuine need for further expert or external input, provided it does not unduly delay the proceedings.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order concerning a patent infringement action, the Claimant sought leave to amend its case to include new submissions regarding 'Threat Simulator' and 'ThreatARMOR.' The Defendants opposed this request. The Local Division Mannheim postponed the final decision on whether to grant this leave until the oral hearing. This ruling highlights the Court's cautious approach when assessing amendments that introduce potentially distinct attacked embodiments, requiring a full understanding of the patent scope before making a determination.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division addressed complex issues surrounding pleading redactions and deadlines in a multi-faceted infringement and revocation case involving Panasonic and Xiaomi. The court allowed for an exception regarding redacted documents but firmly maintained that the timelines for challenging the patent's validity (revocation) remain separate from the main infringement proceedings. This decision clarifies how procedural hurdles, such as document presentation, interact with substantive legal challenges in the UPC.
ICPillar LLC v.Arm Limited, Apical Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, SVF Holdco (and other ARM group companies)
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action against the ARM group, ICPillar LLC successfully petitioned the UPC Court of First Instance for permission to use an alternative method of service for four UK-based defendants. Since standard international service was pending, the claimant used courier services and bailiff reports to prove delivery. The court accepted this 'good service' request, confirming that procedural flexibility is available when ensuring timely notification in complex cross-border cases.
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.