technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 34 of 51 · 1,511 total
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement dispute between Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG and Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding European Patent EP2145848. The proceedings originated from an ex parte evidence preservation order obtained by Oerlikon in June 2023 in connection with the ITMA trade fair held in Rho, Milan. Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation challenging the patent's validity on grounds of added matter, novelty, and inventive step, while Oerlikon introduced seven auxiliary requests. The order addresses procedural matters discussed at the interim conference, including settlement prospects, translation corrections, and the scope of the validity attack.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Respondent
This order concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of September 13, 2024, in which the Local Chamber Munich found the Belkin defendants liable for patent infringement of EP 2 867 997 B1 and ordered them to provide information under Article 67 EPGÜ. The court addressed two key issues: whether the claimant's request for information in electronic form was sufficiently specific, and the nature of coercive penalties under Article 82 EPGÜ. The court held that electronic form must be specifically requested, and that coercive penalties serve both coercive and punitive functions.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_495/2023 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 13/12/2024 APPLICANT in App_61630/2024 – RESPONDENT in App_62436/2024 ICPillar LLC 4265 San Felipe Street, Suite 1100 77027 - Houston, Texas – US Represented by Lionel Martin RESPOND
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 3 764 271. The plaintiff Hand Held Products, Inc. filed suit on November 6, 2024, alleging infringement by the defendant Scandit AG, which is based in Switzerland. The order resolves a discrepancy between the actual date of service (November 20, 2024) and the date automatically recorded in the Case Management System (November 23, 2024), which was based on an inapplicable service fiction under Rule 271.6 of the Rules of Procedure.
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) requested an extension of time limits for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court harmonised the time limits and set the deadline at 14 January 2025, but rejected the request for any further extension beyond the statutory period.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns Microsoft Corporation's request for leave to appeal a prior order (ORD_62739/2024) that granted the respondent Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy leave to reduce its damages claim to €2 million in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Microsoft argued that leave to appeal would clarify the scope and limits of the Court's powers in interpreting a party's request under Article 76(1) UPCA and the admissible scope of an application under Rule 263 RoP. The Court addressed the legal framework for granting leave to appeal, noting it is an exception to the general principle that interlocutory orders may only be reviewed together with the appeal against the final decision.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited sought to revoke a preliminary measures order (ORD 47657/2024) against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited, arguing that the underlying main proceedings on the merits were not timely started within the non-extendable deadlines under Rule 213.1 RoP. The Local Division Munich dismissed the application, holding that the proceedings were validly started when the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024, and that Rule 15(2) RoP does not require court fees to have been physically received by the Court before the deadline expires.
VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, MERIL GMBH, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, INTERLUX, UAB, SORMEDICA, UAB v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against several Meril entities and related companies regarding EP3769722. The Defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the European Patent Office Opposition Division's decision on the patent's validity. After the Court of Appeal set aside an earlier order dismissing the stay request, the Court of First Instance again dismissed the stay request and decided to proceed with the oral hearing as planned on 16 January 2025.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna against a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had exempted Magna's supply obligations for five BMW models but omitted the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé (F74) from the exemption list. The Court of Appeal found that Magna had clearly identified the 2 Series Gran Coupé in its submissions and that the CFI should have included it in the exemption, ordering the injunction's effect suspended as to that model until the appeal is decided.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
Hand Held Products, Inc. filed an application under Rule 109 of the Rules of Procedure requesting simultaneous interpretation from German into English for the oral hearing scheduled for January 9, 2025, in proceedings concerning EP 3 866 051. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request for court-funded interpretation, holding that the mere fact that internal employees of Hand Held Products who do not speak German would attend the hearing did not justify ordering such measures, particularly since Hand Held Products had voluntarily chosen German as the procedural language. The subsidiary request for interpretation arrangements at the applicant's own cost was addressed under Rule 109.4 of the Rules of Procedure.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This case concerns European Patent No. EP 3 490 258 B1 and was decided by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on December 11, 2024. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, brought the action against fifteen HP entities across Europe, with Access Advance LLC intervening in support of the plaintiff. The decision was rendered by a panel consisting of Presiding Judge Thomas as rapporteur, legally qualified judges Dr. Thom and Brinkman, and technically qualified judge Augarde.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu,Inc., Abbott B.V., Abbott, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott France, Abbott Logistics
1. The order pursuant to Rule 36 RoP issued by the judge-rapporteur relates to adding some argu- ments to the debate related to some specific terms regarding claim interpretation, but it did not authorise the defendant to raise a new ground for revocation. The UPC procedure is a front-loaded system and the Court finds no legitimate reason for the defendant, which had already stated its own claim interpretation in its Statement of Defence and counterclaim, to raise a new ground for revocation at
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, Netgear Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich concerning an application for interim measures filed by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities. The dispute concerns European Patents Nos. 3 611 989 and 3 678 321, both declared essential to the WiFi-6 standard. The order addresses the court's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) and (c) EPGÜ to grant interim measures protecting against threatened foreign anti-suit and/or anti-enforcement injunctions, holding that such injunctions violate the European right to access to justice under Art. 47 EU Charter and the German constitutional right under Art. 2(1), 19(4) GG, and qualify as tortious acts under § 823(1) BGB.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3769722. The order addresses multiple case management issues raised during an interim conference, including the value of the case, scheduling relative to parallel EPO opposition proceedings, admissibility of late-filed attacks on inventive step, and various other procedural requests. The Court set the total case value at 6,000,000 EUR, declined to reschedule the oral hearing, excluded certain late-filed inventive step attacks, and ruled on the admissibility of auxiliary requests, equivalence arguments, and expert-related requests.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This case concerns an order by the Court of Appeal regarding coercive penalties in proceedings involving European Patent 4 108 782. The court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction order retroactively removes the legal basis for subsequent decisions ordering payment of coercive penalties for alleged violations occurring before the setting aside. The Court of Appeal held that the setting aside of a first-instance preliminary injunction order under Art. 75(1) EPGÜ and Rule 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the order is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning, thereby eliminating the legal basis for any subsequent coercive penalty decisions.
air up group GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application concerning the service of a request for preliminary measures (interim injunction) to a Chinese-domiciled defendant in proceedings related to EP 3 655 341. After formal service under the Hague Service Convention failed due to the Chinese authority's non-processing for over six months, and alternative methods of service were neither factually nor legally possible, the court held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. Service was deemed effective as of the date of the order, with the defendant given fourteen days to file an objection.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
Avago Technologies, proprietor of European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1 (relating to the 1000Base-T1 Automotive Ethernet Standard, in force only in Germany), sought provisional measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation. The dispute arose after Realtek filed a lawsuit against Avago in the Court of Chancery of Delaware (USA), which was referred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking what Avago characterized as foreign anti-suit and/or anti-enforcement relief. The Local Division Munich ruled on the court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief against such foreign measures, holding that foreign anti-suit and enforcement injunctions violate the European right to effective judicial protection (Art. 47 EU Charter) and the German constitutional guarantee of access to courts.
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Inc, Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A.
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_476/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 02/12/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of revocation : Not provided GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. (Defendant)
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Claimant 10x Genomics requested that the Defendant Curio Bioscience provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Defendant argued the application was inadmissible, contending that Art. 69(4) UPCA only permits defendants to request security from claimants. The Court held the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Defendant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within four weeks, and granted leave to appeal.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal order concerning an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 2 043 492, which covers a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a specific handle arrangement. Dyson Technology Limited, as the patent proprietor, sought interim measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal reviewed the first instance decision and, after balancing the probabilities, concluded that it was not more likely than not that the patent was being infringed. The appeal order thus turned on the assessment of the likelihood of patent infringement in the context of interim relief.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns infringement and nullity proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation). The plaintiffs (Heraeus entities) allege patent infringement by Vibrantz GmbH in Germany, Italy, and France, while the defendant asserts prior use rights and has filed a nullity counterclaim. The order addresses multiple procedural applications, including a review of a prior refusal to allow amendment for indirect infringement of a process claim, and applications to extend both the main claim and counterclaim to cover Romania following its accession to the Unified Patent Court agreement on September 1, 2024.
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 594 009 B1 in a patent infringement action. The Court disregarded the Defendants' written submissions filed on 28 November 2024 because the Defendants failed to make a reasoned request for further written submissions as required under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands BV v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC concerning European patent EP 2 875 740 B1, which relates to electronic vapour products. NJOY challenged the patent's validity on the ground of lack of inventive step, relying on prior art documents including 'Cross', 'Pan', and 'DiFonzo', as well as common general knowledge. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the invention was not obvious in view of the cited prior art combinations, and maintained the patent as granted, ordering NJOY to bear the costs.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing for its representatives who lacked sufficient English skills. The court granted the request for interpretation but ruled that the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, allowing FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
*** v.Amycel LLC
This appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned a challenge to an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague on 31 July 2024 in a dispute involving EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had paid a reduced court fee of €6,600 (60% of the regular €11,000 fee) claiming micro-enterprise status, but the Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence to confirm the Appellant qualified as a small enterprise. After the Appellant failed to pay the additional fees ordered within the set time limit, the Respondent requested a decision by default against the Appellant.
Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
This Procedural Order concerns the protection of confidential information in an infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 3 320 604 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the Claimant's request to add Patent Attorney Florian Saadi to its team of authorised persons, finding the wish to keep teams parallel between the main and parallel PI proceedings reasonable, but declined to extend the group further. The Court classified information contained in the Defendants' Statement of defence and associated exhibits as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP, restricting access to specifically named representatives, natural reliable persons, and additional attorneys.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC seeking revocation of European patent EP 3 456 214, which relates to vaporizers (electronic cigarettes). The patent had previously been opposed before the European Patent Office, where the Opposition Division confirmed its maintenance with amendments, leading to republication on 22 November 2023. The decision addresses procedural issues concerning the front-loaded procedural system, the requirements for specifying grounds of invalidity and prior art in revocation actions, and the limited circumstances under which new facts and evidence may be introduced in subsequent written pleadings.
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Respondent
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 27/11/2024 Order no. ORD_63173/2024 APPLICANT (defendant in the main proceeding) Himson Engineering Private Limited Represented by Fabrizio Jacobacci
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court considered Total Semiconductor's request for discretionary review of an order by the Mannheim Local Division's judge-rapporteur requiring Total Semiconductor to provide €600,000 in security for costs. The central issue was whether a judge-rapporteur has the competence to issue an order on security for costs and deny leave to appeal, or whether such an order must be adopted by a panel. The Court of Appeal allowed leave to appeal on this procedural question but expressly excluded the substantive matter of security for costs from the scope of review.
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.