technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 33 of 51 · 1,511 total
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Respondent
The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought review under Rule 333 RoP of an order granting security for costs of EUR 300,000.00 in its infringement action against Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The applicant requested reduction of the security to EUR 100,000.00, citing its subsequent application to reduce the damages claimed. The respondent argued the request was inadmissible and unfounded. The Court addressed the admissibility of the application, clarifying that incorrect citation of legal provisions does not prevent consideration of the motion, and that parties may apply to revoke or vary a security order when factual circumstances change.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal proceeding concerned a request by Syngenta Limited to be relieved from translating Exhibit FF25, a German-language document attached to its Statement of Response. Sumi Agro, the opposing party, took no position and left the matter to the Court's discretion. The judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal ruled that the exhibit did not need to be translated, granting Syngenta's request.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 requested that the claimant, Ona Patents SL, provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the request well-founded, holding that the claimant, a recently founded entity with minimal share capital and no apparent financial reserves, failed to substantiate its ability to bear potential costs. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks, rejecting the defendants' request for EUR 1.012 million and a one-week deadline.
Advanced Bionics AG , Advanced Bionics Sarl v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmb
This case concerns a revocation action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 4074373 titled 'MRI-SAFE DISK MAGNET FOR IMPLANTS,' which relates to magnetic arrangements in implantable medical devices such as cochlear implants that are compatible with magnetic resonance imaging. Advanced Bionics AG filed the revocation action against MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, the registered proprietor, while MED-EL filed a counterclaim for revocation. The dispute centers on issues of insufficiency of disclosure, added matter, and lack of inventive step, with the panel noting that the inventor cannot be examined as a witness due to potential direct interest in the outcome.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed patent infringement actions against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patents Nos. 2 197 132, 3 024 163, and 2 584 854. After the written procedure was concluded, the parties agreed to withdraw all claims and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The court granted the withdrawals and ordered a 40 percent partial refund of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning two combined cases (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The plaintiff Snowpixie Co., Ltd. (Japan) sought extensions of deadlines for filing its reply to the infringement action and its response to the counterclaim for revocation. After the Rapporteur initially extended deadlines to December 23, 2024, the plaintiff's representative filed a further request on December 23, 2024 seeking an additional extension until December 27, 2024, citing the responsible attorney's ongoing medical treatment and inability to complete the briefs.
Insulet Corporation v.Respondent
1) The intervener must proof an interest justifying the support to the reasons of one of the
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns three consolidated patent infringement actions brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH involving European Patents Nos. 2 197 132, 3 024 163, and 2 584 854. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested leave to withdraw their respective actions and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40 percent partial refund of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural matters following the Local Division Munich's August 30, 2024 decision revoking European Patent No. 1 838 002 and dismissing the infringement action brought by Avago Technologies against Tesla entities. After Avago filed an appeal, Tesla filed a cost determination application, which Tesla subsequently sought to withdraw. Avago also sought leave to withdraw the main action. The presiding judge granted the withdrawal of the cost determination application, declared those proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear their own costs in the cost determination proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Microsoft Corporation filed an application before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court seeking protection of confidential information under Rule 262 RoP regarding Exhibit BP 01, a settlement offer document. The court granted the application, ruling that while the document was already known to Suinno and did not require restriction of access between the parties under Rule 262A RoP, its original confidential version should not be available to the public due to the confidential nature of certain information contained therein.
PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing a request by Defendants 3, 5 to 8 (Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, and Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico) to classify certain information as confidential. The court found that while the formal requirements of R. 262A.3 RoP were not met, the request under R. 262.2 RoP was admissible. The court classified the green-shaded passages in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, along with Exhibits Aff3 and Aff4, as confidential trade secrets relating to revenue, profit, and sales figures of Defendants 7 and 8.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_814/2024 Ordonnance de conservation des preuves (saisie) et de descente sur les lieux du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23/12/2024 Concernant R.192 à 199 RdP DEMANDEUR TIRU 7, rue du Dr Lancereaux 75008 Paris Représenté
Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, Memodo GmbH, PowerDeal SRL v.Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court granted confidentiality protection for green-shaded financial information (revenue, profit, and sales figures) submitted by Defendants 1, 2, and 4 in their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, while rejecting the request for protection of grey-shaded technical information that had already been submitted in parallel proceedings before the District Court of Mannheim without confidentiality measures.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_813/2024 Ordonnance de conservation des preuves (saisie) et de descente sur les lieux du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23/12/2024 concernant R.192 à 199 RdP DEMANDEUR TIRU 7, rue du Dr Lancereaux 75008 Paris Représenté
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a Court of First Instance order that granted Suinno leave to reduce its damages claim in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that Suinno's application constituted an unconditional limitation of its claim under Rule 263.3 RoP, which must always be granted, and that Microsoft's interests and right of defence were sufficiently protected.
pharma-aktiva GmbH, Hofer Kommanditgesellschaft, ALDI Nord Deutschland Stiftung & Co. KG, ALDI SE & Co. KG, ALDI SÜD Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. oHG v.G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG, a pharmaceutical company marketing the head lice treatment NYDA®, filed an application for preliminary measures against pharma-aktiva GmbH and several ALDI group entities (ALDI SÜD, ALDI Nord, ALDI SE & Co. KG, and Hofer KG) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 1 993 363 B1, which concerns a composition for combating ectoparasites and their eggs. The applicant challenged the sale of a competing lice spray marketed as 'Vitalis Läuse Spray' in Germany and 'ACTIV MED Läusespray' in Austria. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on December 20, 2024, following an oral hearing on December 12, 2024, addressing the application for interim measures under Rule 206 RoP.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' appeal against the dismissal of its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 for a C5-binding antibody (eculizumab) used to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. The court held that the patent's claim 2 could not be corrected by interpretation to remove 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus of SEQ ID NO:4, as the existence of the error and the precise correction were not sufficiently certain to the person skilled in the art. Consequently, the court found it more likely than not that claim 2 was insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC, and ordered Alexion to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG for access to the case files of an ongoing patent infringement action between PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG (plaintiff) and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH (defendants) concerning European Patent EP 3 602 692. HARTING, which had filed an opposition against the patent in suit before the European Patent Office (joined by defendant ILME GmbH), sought access to the briefs and evidence filed in the main infringement proceedings to properly defend its interests in both the opposition proceedings and related utility model infringement actions. The Local Chamber Munich held that an opponent in a pending opposition proceeding concerning the patent in suit has a legal interest in accessing the case files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP during the ongoing proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. The court granted both parties' Rule 263 requests to add Romania (which acceded to the Unitary Patent system on 1 September 2024) to the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, and granted the claimant's request to amend its information request to require purchase documents. The court set the dispute value at €16 million, scheduled the oral hearing for 11 February 2025, and rejected requests for party and court experts.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_22/2023) involving European Patent EP4108782, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, against Vizgen, Inc. The dispute centers on Plaintiff Harvard's third request to amend the patent, filed on October 25, 2024, which was rejected by the Rapporteur's order of November 8, 2024. The Local Chamber Hamburg reviewed the order under Rule 333.1 RoP and confirmed the rejection, holding that approximately three months between the alleged reason for the amendment and the filing of the request was too long under Rule 30.2 RoP.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 B1 relating to the antibody eculizumab for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, sought provisional measures against Amgen, which markets BEKEMV®, a biosimilar of Soliris®. The Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) dismissed Alexion's application, and Alexion appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the patent's SEQ ID NO:4 sequence must be interpreted as including 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus, and that Alexion had failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the skilled person would correct this as an error, rendering the patent claim more likely than not insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC.
Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal concerns a challenge by Sumi Agro against an order of the Local Division Munich that granted provisional measures against Sumi Agro in relation to European Patent EP 2 152 073. Sumi Agro submitted new facts and evidence in the appeal proceedings, and Syngenta objected to the admission of certain evidence while also seeking to introduce its own new evidence. The Court of Appeal disregarded Exhibit SA17 because Sumi Agro had previously submitted other pages from the same publication before the Court of First Instance, but admitted evidence relating to a possible new version of the contested embodiment (Kagura 2024) following the alleged infringer's statements about a product ingredient change.
HGSystem ApS, Rune Eilertsen, Infotech Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS v.Respondent
This case concerned a review of an ex parte evidence preservation order issued by the Local Division in Copenhagen in relation to European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1. Hybridgenerator ApS, the requesting party, sought confirmation of the order, while HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, and Infotech Holding ApS sought its revocation or modification. The court conducted a review hearing on November 28, 2024, and issued its ruling on December 19, 2024.
LAMA FRANCE v.Respondent
Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 19/12/2024 REQUÉRANT LAMA FRANCE 241 Rue du Companet 69140 - Rillieux-la-Pape - FR Représenté par Henri BOURGEOIS DEFENDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This is a revocation action filed by Tandem Diabetes Care entities against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, which relates to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. The claimants sought full revocation of the patent on grounds of added matter, lack of novelty over WO 2007/077255 A2 (Glejboel), and lack of inventive step starting from US 2002/0120236 (Diaz) or Glejboel combined with Diaz and/or US 6,516,950 (Robertson). The defendant raised a preliminary objection under Rules 19(1)(b) and 48 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court held that breach of a standstill clause does not divest the breaching party of the right to bring an action where the temporal restriction is not justified by public interest, though it may give rise to contractual liability.
Yves Prevoo, Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V. v.Visibly Inc.
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 918 974 concerning a method and system for determining corrective lens prescriptions, brought an infringement action against Easee B.V., its managing director Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. concerning an online vision test offered via a software application. The defendants raised a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP challenging the court's jurisdiction over the personal liability claim against the individual director. The Hamburg Local Chamber held that an alleged patent infringement constitutes a tort within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, and that the UPC therefore has jurisdiction over director liability claims under Article 32 UPCA.
Amycel LLC v.***
1 Intern gebruik The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/12/2024 regarding R.275 RoP APPLICANT Amycel LLC 260 Westgate Drive - 95076 - Watsonville, California - US Represented by H
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited regarding European Patent No. 3 611 989. The decision sets out guiding principles on several procedural and substantive issues, including the formal requirements for withdrawing from the opt-out under Rule 5.7 of the Rules of Procedure, the treatment of exhaustion defenses in infringement proceedings, and the FRAND-related defenses arising from the CJEU's Huawei v. ZTE ruling and IEEE Letters of Assurance. The court clarified that a patent holder who has made multiple acceptable licensing offers (such as a bilateral portfolio license and a pool license) cannot have its infringement action dismissed if at least one offer meets FRAND requirements.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited (the Claimant in a revocation action regarding EP 2 794 928 B1) for the release of a security for legal costs previously imposed under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The security of EUR 300,000 had been ordered on 30 October 2023 due to concerns about the Claimant's financial position and its close ties to its then-parent company. Following a restructuring under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code and the Claimant's transfer to Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., the Claimant sought release of the security on the grounds that the reasons for imposing it had ceased to exist.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Curio Bioscience filed an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP seeking to stay an order from the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide EUR 200,000 in security for legal costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Curio had not established the extreme urgency required under Rule 223.4 RoP, as it had merely claimed it would be forced to comply with a manifestly wrong order or face a default judgment.
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.