technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 31 of 51 · 1,511 total
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, brought by Fujifilm Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order, issued in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 11-13 February 2025, sets out preliminary views and questions on key issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law (UPCA versus national law), the value of the dispute, priority and prior use rights, the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and infringement by the SONORA XTRA-3 product.
P.T.S. Machinery B.V. v.Mammoet Holding B.V.
The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_16/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/01/2025 regarding the preserving of evidence APPLICANT Mammoet Holding B.V. (Applicant) Karel Doormanweg 47 - 3115 JD - Schiedam – NL Represented
KIPA AB v.Respondent
An unnamed member of the public, represented by Erik Krahbichler, applied for access to all written pleadings and evidence in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_380/2023) between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril et al. concerning EP 3 769 722. After the parties objected and Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited requested reimbursement of EUR 17,168.70 in legal costs, the Applicant withdrew the applications. The judge-rapporteur closed the proceedings on the access applications and dismissed the requests for reimbursement of legal costs, holding that Article 69 UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering a member of the public to reimburse costs incurred by parties consulted under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
PowerDeal SRL v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for rectification under Rule 353 RoP filed in connection with infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., sought rectification of a prior order concerning the protection of confidential information. The court dismissed the application, finding no obvious slip or clerical mistake, as the unredacted version of the order correctly contained the name of a natural person of Defendant 7 (PowerDeal SRL) to whom access was granted, while only the redacted version had that name replaced with '[…]'.
air up group GmbH v.Respondent
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned the service of a decision by default in provisional measures proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Chinese authorities under the Hague Service Convention, which failed to process service for over six months. The court held that publication of the decision by default on the Court's website, with notification to the defendant by email, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This is a revocation action filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against VMR Products LLC before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance, concerning European patent EP 3 626 092, which relates to vaporizer devices (electronic cigarettes). The claimant seeks revocation of the patent with effect across multiple European territories, arguing lack of inventive step. The patent was filed on 14 March 2014 with priority dates of 12 November 2013 and 10 February 2014, and was also subject to pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office.
XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V. v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 15/01/2025 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1) XSYS Germany GmbH, Industriestraße 1, 77731 Willstätt - G
SharkNinja Europe Limited, SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by SharkNinja to suspend the cost assessment proceedings or, alternatively, to extend the time limit for filing a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction against SharkNinja and ordering Dyson to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding when the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 of the Rules of Procedure begins to run and the applicability of Rules 150 and 151 when no main proceedings under Rule 213 are initiated.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent No. EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims and requested the Court to declare the proceedings closed without a cost decision. The Court applied Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure and, finding no legitimate interest in adjudication, permitted the withdrawals and closed the proceedings.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 20/01/2025 REQUÉRANT N.J DIFFUSION SARL 44 Rue Paul Valéry 75016 PARIS - FR Représenté par Catherine Mateu INTIMÉ - DEFENDEUR GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsd
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. , Amazon EU S.à r.l. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of Appeal concerning an application under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. Amazon, the appellant and defendant in the main infringement proceedings, sought to classify certain information from its appeal and appeal brief as confidential. The disputed information relates to licensing negotiations between the parties, the defendants' business model, and details about licensees and license agreements of the plaintiff Nokia. The underlying case concerns European Patent EP 2 661 892, with the Local Division Munich having previously rejected Amazon's request for disclosure of unredacted documents on December 16, 2024.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs, Inc.
1 DECISION of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central division Paris Seat (Section 1) delivered on 17 January 2025 concerning EP 3 430 921 B1 KEYWORDS: Revocation, claim interpretation, clarity, added matter, admission of auxiliary claims CLAIMAN
NEC Corporation v.Respondent
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714 before the Local Division Munich. Before the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached a contractual agreement, and NEC declared withdrawal of the action. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by NEC.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning four related patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants, a group of Sanofi entities, sought substitution of Sanofi Mature IP by Sanofi SA following a corporate reorganization in which Sanofi Mature IP was dissolved without liquidation and its assets, including the patent in suit, were universally transferred to Sanofi SA. The defendants raised no objections at the preliminary interim conference, and the Court granted the substitution, holding that it had no consequence on the proceedings under Rules 306 and 310 RoP.
*** v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court rejected an infringement action brought by an individual plaintiff against OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV concerning European Patent 3 216 430. The court found neither literal infringement nor infringement by equivalence, holding that without functional equivalence no infringement by equivalence can be established under any equivalence test. The court also addressed procedural issues regarding the temporal condition for substantive proceedings following an evidence preservation order under Rule 198(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEl GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the court over a standalone action for the quantification of damages following a national court judgment establishing patent infringement and liability for damages. The appellant, Fives ECL, sought to quantify damages of EUR 6.5 million against REEL GmbH based on a prior judgment of the Landgericht Düsseldorf finding REEL liable for infringing EP 1 740 740. The Court of Appeal overturned the Local Division Hamburg's decision and held that the court has jurisdiction over such standalone damages quantification actions, including for infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the patent was still in force at that time.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a bifurcation request in patent infringement proceedings before the Hamburg Local Division. The Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP2792100, sought to have the Defendants' counterclaim for revocation referred to the Central Division Paris while the infringement action continued in Hamburg. The Defendants, comprising various Xiaomi entities and MediaTek Inc., had initially requested a stay of the infringement proceedings pending resolution of the revocation matter. The Claimant argued that separating the proceedings would ensure procedural economy and timely resolution of urgent commercial matters.
NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order by the President of the Court of First Instance concerning an application by NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) to change the language of proceedings from German to English under R. 323 RoP and Article 49(5) UPCA. The main infringement action was brought by BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG based on European patents EP3743812 and EP2628080, both granted in English. NVIDIA argued that English should be adopted as the language of proceedings because it is the language of the patents, while the Claimants opposed the change. The order sets out the parties' positions and the points at issue for the court's consideration.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
Bhagat Textile Engineers appealed a decision of the Milan Local Division finding it had infringed Oerlikon's EP 2 145 848 patent and filed a separate application under Rule 223 RoP seeking suspensive effect of the appeal. Bhagat argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to parallel revocation proceedings involving a third party (Himson Engineering) and considerable doubts about the patent's validity. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that Bhagat had failed to evidence any exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of a cost determination application filed by the defendants (Tesla entities) following a patent infringement and revocation dispute with Avago Technologies. The Local Chamber Hamburg held that the court of first instance retains jurisdiction over the withdrawal of a cost determination application still pending before it, even when the main proceedings (infringement claim and counterclaims) have been appealed. The reporting judge further held that, as a substantive decision under Rule 156.2 RoP rather than a case management measure under Rules 331 ff RoP, the decision to permit the withdrawal falls within the reporting judge's sole and exclusive competence.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Dexcom entities concerning European patent EP 4 087 195 before the Local Division Munich. Following the filing of counterclaims for revocation by the defendants and an application to amend the patent by the claimant, all parties mutually withdrew their respective claims before the scheduled oral hearing. The Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs with no reimbursement between the parties.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Respondent
This decision concerns the Court of Appeal's handling of Avago's request to withdraw its infringement action and seek reimbursement of court fees following an adverse first-instance ruling. The Local Division Hamburg had dismissed Avago's infringement claim, partially revoked the patent EP 1 612 910, and ordered Avago to bear 85% of costs. Avago appealed and subsequently sought to withdraw the infringement action, with Tesla consenting. The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility of withdrawal requests in appellate proceedings and the consequences for related auxiliary requests.
Alpinestars S.p.A. v.Respondent
1. The coordination between the appeals proceedings before the EPO and the proceedings be- fore UPC may be achieved in the most efficient way, taking into account the position of all
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Respondent
This decision concerns the admission of withdrawal of an infringement action in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Avago had sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent EP 1 612 910, and Tesla had filed counterclaims for revocation. Following a mixed first-instance ruling by the Local Division Hamburg, Avago appealed and subsequently requested withdrawal of the infringement action, to which Tesla consented. The Court of Appeal admitted the withdrawal, declared the infringement proceedings terminated, and addressed the consequences for the revocation counterclaims and the reimbursement of court fees.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
The Local Chamber Vienna addressed an alleged infringement of European Patent 2 643 717 brought by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH, with Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. intervening. The court established guiding principles on four key issues: the mandatory formal counterclaim for revocation when invalidity is pleaded, the distinction between recall and final removal of infringing products, the discretionary nature of publication orders, and the cost treatment of interveners as analogous to parties.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The case concerned issues of direct and indirect patent infringement, novelty, inventive step, and remedies including destruction, recall, and removal from distribution channels, as well as publication of the decision.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf heard oral arguments on November 26, 2024 and issued its decision on January 14, 2025. The judgment establishes key principles regarding direct and indirect patent infringement, destruction of infringing goods, recall and removal from distribution channels, and permission to publish the decision.
Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare S.L.U. v.Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns four consolidated patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel). The dispute centered on access to confidential information contained in Claimants' Exhibit No. D.4 (a witness statement with appendices). The court granted partial confidentiality protection while expanding access beyond Sanofi's requested limitation to only the named UPC representatives, allowing access to specified legal teams and at least one natural person from each Defendant group.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a judge-rapporteur could issue an order on security for costs under R. 158 RoP and decide on leave to appeal. The court held that while a judge-rapporteur is competent to issue an order on security for costs, such an order is a case management order subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP, and only the panel—not the judge-rapporteur—can decide on leave to appeal. The impugned order of the Mannheim Local Division was revoked and the case referred back to the same panel.
Bentley Motors Limited v.Respondent
Bentley Motors Limited, as claimant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 1 552 399 against Network Systems Technologies LLC, applied to withdraw the action. The respondent was given an opportunity to comment and did not object within the time limit set by the Court. The Court permitted the withdrawal under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the decision entered on the register, with no cost decision issued as neither party sought one.
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.