technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 32 of 51 · 1,511 total
UPC Decision UPC-001039 v.Respondent
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd filed an application for provisional measures against three Netgear entities concerning European Patents Nos. 3 611 989 and 3 678 321 before the Local Division Munich. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, Huawei withdrew its application for interim measures. The single judge granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, ordered each party to bear its own costs, set the dispute value at EUR 3 million, and ordered the release of the EUR 3,000,000 security deposit to Huawei's legal representatives.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This Revised Order concerns procedural matters in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The dispute centers on Claimant 2 (Harvard College)'s filing of 55 auxiliary requests in its application to amend the patent at issue, with parallel opposition proceedings pending before the European Patent Office (EPO). The Defendants sought to limit the number of auxiliary requests and adjust procedural deadlines, while the judge-rapporteur had previously ordered a stay of proceedings and a reduction of auxiliary requests to a one-digit number. The Revised Order addresses Claimant 2's subsequent application regarding the implementation of these prior orders.
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604. Magna appealed the order, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was needed.
UPC Decision UPC-001036 v.Respondent
The applicant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, sought interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 before the Local Division Munich. After the court issued an ex parte order on December 9, 2024, which had not yet been served on the respondent, the applicant withdrew its application for interim measures on January 3, 2025. The court allowed the withdrawal without hearing the respondent, holding that the prior ex parte order did not constitute a final decision ending the instance because the review period under Rule 212.3 RoP had not yet begun.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This cost determination proceedings order concerned the reimbursement of costs from prior interim injunction proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The parties had agreed on the principal amounts of recoverable costs, but Edwards sought additional interest at five percentage points above the base rate under § 247 BGB from the date of filing. The court rejected the interest claim, holding that reimbursable procedural costs and expenses do not bear interest in cost determination proceedings.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the Netgear group of companies to withdraw their action for a declaration of non-infringement against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd regarding European Patent Nos. 3 678 321 and EP 3 611 989. The defendant had already consented to the withdrawal in parallel proceedings. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, set the dispute value at €1 million, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the court fees paid, with each party bearing their own costs.
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs. The Court allowed both withdrawals and declared all proceedings closed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This case concerned an infringement action filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against three Netgear entities regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321, accompanied by a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties reached a settlement and jointly applied for leave to withdraw their respective claims. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 40% refund of the court fees paid by each party, with each side bearing its own costs.
UPC Decision UPC-001054 v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 897 305, a patent protecting a drinking device for retronasal perception of aroma substances. The defendant, a Chinese company, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering the defendant to cease infringing activities across UPC Member States, pay penalties of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and bear the costs of proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against orders granting Powell Gilbert LLP, a member of the public, access to written pleadings and evidence from proceedings concerning provisional measures involving patents EP 2 713 879 and EP 3 831 283. The court held that the general public interest in accessing pleadings and evidence arises after a first-instance decision or order concluding the proceedings is rendered, regardless of whether an appeal is pending, whether the order concerns provisional measures, whether parallel proceedings exist, or whether the decision addresses all arguments and evidence. The court found Powell Gilbert's request to be reasoned and concluded that the balance of interests favored allowing access.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding confidentiality requests in proceedings related to European Patent EP 4 201 327. Menarini sought to extend confidentiality protections over certain technical information in its Statement of Response to the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's requests for confidentiality (Requests I–III) as superfluous, holding that the existing non-appealed confidentiality order from the Court of First Instance continued to apply to the appeal proceedings.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by ITCiCo Spain S.L. to set aside a default decision delivered on 16 September 2024 in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 796 333. The applicant argued that its default in failing to file a defence to revocation was due to its long-standing European Patent Attorney being unavailable because of illness. The respondent, BMW, objected that the applicant had not sufficiently explained its default or taken reasonable efforts to meet the deadline. The Court interpreted Rule 356(2) RoP to require the applicant to demonstrate that the default was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure beyond their control.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's request to extend the deadline for filing its Statement of response, holding that the request was superfluous because Rule 301.2 RoP provides for an automatic extension of time periods when the court cannot receive electronic documents. The court found that the deadline was automatically extended until the next working day after the Case Management System issue was resolved on 30 December 2024.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC,
The Court of Appeal addressed an application by DISH Technologies and Sling TV for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of their appeal. The appeal had been filed precautionarily against an order of the Local Division Mannheim requiring them to post €800,000 in security for Aylo's costs. The Court of Appeal granted the alternative request, ordering reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees (€900) under R.370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure, but rejected the request for full reimbursement.
Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV , ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV , JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA, XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl , E-LAIN SAS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, BI v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the President of the Local Division Paris concerning the language of proceedings in a patent infringement action. ArcelorMittal filed an infringement claim on 18 October 2024 against multiple XPENG entities and their European distributors/dealers based on European Patent EP 3290200 relating to coated steel strips. The Defendants filed a preliminary objection regarding the language of the proceedings, and the Court addressed translation arrangements, granting the parties 10 days to agree on which annexes should be provided in English.
UPC Decision UPC-001047 v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringing EP 3 655 341, owned by air up group GmbH, which protects a drinking device for retronasal reception of an aroma substance. The defendant, a Chinese company selling a competing drinking bottle with aroma pods, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court ordered the defendant to cease and desist from the infringing activities across UPC Member States, imposed a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Meril Italy srl, Meril Life Science Private Limited, Meril GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns a cost application filed by the Meril entities against SWAT Medical AB, seeking reimbursement of EUR 15,000 in costs incurred during proceedings related to SWAT Medical's application for access to written pleadings and evidence (App_33484/2024), which had been rejected. The respondents argued the cost application was inadmissible because it was incorrectly filed under Rule 9 RoP rather than Rule 158 RoP. The applicants filed a further application (App_64037/2024) to rebut the inadmissibility argument. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur addressed the admissibility of the applicants' written comments and the procedural framework governing cost decisions following rejected access-to-register requests.
MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters) v.Respondent
MediaTek Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against Xiaomi. The confidential information at issue related to the architecture of MediaTek's processors. The Court of Appeal allowed MediaTek's application to intervene in support of Xiaomi, finding that MediaTek had a direct and present legal interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its processor architecture information.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 2 043 492. Dyson Technology Limited, as plaintiff, requested the suspension of both the infringement proceedings and the related counterclaim proceedings, submitting the defendants' written consent dated January 3, 2025. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering the suspension of both proceedings and cancelling the scheduled interim hearing of May 8, 2025 and main hearing of June 3, 2025.
Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns four related patent infringement actions brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The core issue was Sanofi's application under Rule 305 RoP to substitute Sanofi-Aventis France with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie following a corporate merger. The court granted the substitution, ruling that the retroactive effect of the merger was not relevant and that no formal stay of proceedings was necessary.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. v.Respondent
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed an infringement action against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1. The defendants had filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Before any decision on the merits, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
DexCom, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities concerning European patent EP 4 026 488 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After the Abbott defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and conditional application to amend the patent, and the defendants in turn withdrew their counterclaim. The court allowed all withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to each party for their respective actions.
Berggren Oy v.Respondent
This order addressed a request by Berggren Oy, a firm of UPC representatives, for access to all written pleadings and evidence lodged in a completed revocation action between NanoString Technologies Europe Limited and President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning European patent EP2794928. The Court held the request admissible and, weighing the public interest in transparency against the interests protected under Article 45 UPCA, granted access after redaction of personal data under Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Neither party to the main proceedings objected to the request.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 678 321. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd filed an infringement action against three Netgear entities, who filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Both parties agreed to have the infringement action and the invalidity counterclaim heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, and the panel concurred with this request.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for invalidity involving European Patent No. 3 678 321. The technically qualified judge previously assigned to the case, Patrice Vidon, resigned pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Statutes. To ensure continuity of the panel's composition, the presiding judge requested the assignment of a replacement technically qualified judge effective January 1, 2025.
Insulet Corporation v.Respondent
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 FINAL ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 30/12/2024 Order no. ORD_60558/2024 Head notes 1. In proceedings for costs decision under rules 150 RoP et seq. an already existing decision on costs in pr
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants to reject at an early stage the plaintiff's application for leave to amend its claims under Rule 263 RoP, which was based on a conditional application to amend the patent-in-suit (EP2642632) under Rule 30 RoP filed in response to the defendants' counterclaim for revocation. The defendants argued that procedural economy required an early decision on the admissibility of the underlying patent amendment request. The court declined to make a preliminary decision on the substantive admissibility of the claim amendment, holding that such decisions of this magnitude should generally be left to the main proceedings and the oral hearing.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation filed an application requesting that the respondent Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy be ordered to provide additional security for legal costs in the proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The respondent had already been ordered to provide security of EUR 300,000.00, and Microsoft sought an increase to at least EUR 500,000.00, or alternatively EUR 300,000.00. The respondent requested dismissal or, alternatively, significantly lower security amounts. The Court observed that the request, although framed as one for additional security, actually amounted to a request to modify the existing security by increasing its amount.
Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in a declaration of non-infringement action brought by Netgear entities against Huawei Technologies concerning European Patents Nos. 3 678 321 and 3 611 989. The order addresses two procedural matters: the inclusion of a license agreement between Huawei and Qualcomm (previously filed as Annex K68 in related infringement proceedings) into the present case file, and the assignment of technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon from a related proceeding to this case. Both parties consented to these procedural economy measures, and the court ordered the continuation of existing confidentiality protections.
Google Ireland Limited v.Respondent
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Defendants (Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant (Ona Patents SL) lacked the financial resources to cover any potential cost order. The Court granted the request in part, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks of service of the order, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its financial position despite the Defendants presenting credible concerns.
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.