technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 35 of 58 · 1,714 total
GISELA MAYER GmbH 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 26/02/2025 Concernant une demande en garantie des frais (Règle 158 Rdp) REQUÉRANT - DEFENDEUR GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsdorfer Straße 3 87700 - Memmingen
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the review of the amount of court fee reimbursement following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions and counterclaims after an out-of-court settlement. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees, but the presiding judge as rapporteur had granted only 40%, reasoning that the withdrawals occurred after the completion of the written procedure. Panasonic argued that the parties had not been informed of the completion of the written procedure before withdrawing. The panel confirmed the rapporteur's orders, maintaining the 40% reimbursement.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerned a fee refund dispute following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and counterclaims after an out-of-court settlement. The parties requested a 60% refund of court fees, but the presiding judge initially granted only 40% under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff sought review to obtain the higher 60% refund, and the defendants joined this request. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the 40% refund, holding that the complex and intensively pursued nature of the dispute constituted an exceptional case under Rule 370.9(e).
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This decision concerns the assessment of costs for first instance and appeal proceedings in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Munich. The applicants (Bruker Spatial Biology, Luxendo GmbH, and Bruker Nederland B.V.) sought cost assessment of €337,431.50 against the respondents (10x Genomics, Inc. and NanoString Technologies Inc.) following the Court of Appeal's rejection of the respondents' application for interim measures. The court addressed key procedural questions regarding the admissibility of cost assessment applications after summary proceedings, the nature of cost orders in interim measure proceedings, and the binding effect of the one-month deadline under Rule 151.
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Biolitec, the proprietor of European patent EP 3 685 783, sought provisional measures against the Lightguide companies for alleged patent infringement. The Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) refused the provisional measures by order of 5 September 2024. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld this refusal, finding that Biolitec had not demonstrated that provisional measures were necessary because proceedings on the merits could be awaited, and that the requested measures would change a market status quo established years before the patent's grant.
Scandit AG v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 866 051. The order addresses case management matters following an interim hearing held on February 21, 2025, including the valuation of the infringement claim and counterclaim, procedural questions regarding late submissions, and scheduling for further proceedings.
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought a preliminary injunction against Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg, alleging that Speed Care's SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing infringed European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1, which protects clay-based hemostatic agents and devices. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by claim 1 of the patent in suit, and therefore could not establish infringement.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH v.SES-imagotag SA
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns court fees for the appeal instance, an application for a default decision, and an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision. The underlying dispute involves EP 3 883 277, where VusionGroup's application for interim measures against the Hanshow companies was rejected by the Local Division Munich, with VusionGroup ordered to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues regarding the cost determination application and the admissibility of the appeal.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
Procedural order concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in which the Local Division Düsseldorf addressed the Applicant's request to exchange a deposited enforcement security of EUR 2,000,000 with a bank guarantee. The Court found the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Registrar to repay the deposit to the Applicant, subject to the expiry of the review period.
Bhagat Textile Engineers (Bhagat) v.Respondent
Bhagat Textile Engineers applied for access to documents and written submissions in a revocation counterclaim filed by Himson Engineering Private Limited against Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP214548. Bhagat sought the documents to substantiate a renewed request for suspension of its appeal in a parallel infringement action. The Milan Local Division denied the application, finding that the information was obtainable through other channels and that granting access would compromise the integrity of the proceedings.
Cretes NV v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the streamlining of parallel infringement and revocation proceedings between CRETES NV (plaintiff/counterclaim defendant) and HYLER BV (defendant/counterclaim plaintiff) relating to European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152. The Court addresses a general procedural request filed by CRETES under Rule 9 RoP regarding the alignment of deadlines between the infringement action (UPC_CFI_216/2024) and the revocation counterclaim (UPC_CFI_556/2024). Both parties had previously agreed that the date of notification of the Statement of Defence (September 16, 2024) would serve as the determining date for deadlines in both proceedings.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of the court file under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in a preliminary evidence preservation proceeding relating to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The patent holder SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. raised no objection, noting that Chainzone had already been admitted as an intervenor in related proceedings before the Local Chamber Vienna. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering that file inspection be provided subject to redaction of personal data to be identified by SWARCO within ten days.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a revocation counterclaim related to European Patent No. 2 043 492 before the Local Chamber Munich. Dyson Technology Limited sought leave to withdraw its infringement action, while SharkNinja sought leave to withdraw its revocation counterclaim, with both parties confirming they had reached an out-of-court settlement and waiving their respective claims. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared both proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to each side.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
Aarke AB appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding it had infringed EP 1 793 917 and granting an injunction. Before the appeal was decided, Aarke applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP and sought reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision was necessary since Sodastream filed no comments or cost requests, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Aarke.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Network System Technologies LLC (NTS) for the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions against AUDI AG. The Court of Appeal had previously ordered NST to provide security for costs totaling EUR 500,000 across three proceedings. After NTS withdrew the infringement actions and the Munich Local Division closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full release and return of the deposited security amounts.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S Machinery B.V.
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_16/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/02/2025 APPLICANT Mammoet Holding B.V. (Applicant) - Karel Doormanweg 47 - 3115 JD - Schiedam - NL Represented by Ricardo Dijkstra RELEVA
Dyson Technology Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both parties informed the court that they had reached an out-of-court settlement and consented to the withdrawal of their respective claims, waiving all asserted claims. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals and ordered that each party receive a 60 percent refund of the court fees for their respective actions.
Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing the Claimant's request under Rule 9.3 ROP for an extension of time periods. The court denied the main request for a three-week extension but granted a one-week extension, taking into account the Chinese New Year holidays affecting Defendants 1, 2, and 4's parent company in China. The relevant time limits were extended until 3 March 2025 for all Defendants to maintain harmonisation.
POSCO v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by POSCO, a member of the public, seeking inspection of written pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against multiple XPENG group companies and their European distributors based on European Patent EP 3 290 200. POSCO, which has filed an opposition against the same patent at the European Patent Office, argued that access to the case file is necessary to analyze ArcelorMittal's claim interpretation in the UPC proceedings, which is directly relevant to the validity discussion in the parallel EPO opposition appeal. The XPENG defendants left the decision to the discretion of the Court.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order in evidence preservation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717, owned by SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. SWARCO alleged that Yunex GmbH had installed patent-infringing collective optics manufactured by Shenzhen Dianming Tech Co., Ltd in LED display panels deployed in the city of Mönchengladbach. The order addressed the procedural question of how to handle the mootness (Erledigung) of an evidence preservation application, holding that Rules 360 and 198.1 of the Rules of Procedure apply analogously, and reserving the cost decision to the main proceedings.
Nokia Technologies Oy ao v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd ao
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on February 19, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patents EP 2 243 229 and EP 3 799 333, following an oral hearing on February 18, 2025. The applicants, two Nokia group entities responsible for managing and licensing Nokia's patent portfolio, sought provisional measures against three Chinese respondents (Shanghai Sunmi Technology, Sunmi Technology (Yunnan), and Shangtian Technology (Shanghai)) ahead of the EuroCIS trade fair in Düsseldorf. The order establishes key legal principles regarding the imminence of patent infringement, particularly in the context of anti-suit injunctions, and addresses the conditions under which security for provisional measures may be exceptionally omitted.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems GmbH
Lionra Technologies Ltd., an Irish patent licensing company, sued Cisco Systems GmbH and its US parent Cisco Systems, Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 201 740 B1, which protects fast packet switching in wireless networks. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, which the plaintiff defended in auxiliary form with limitations. The case concerns Cisco's Catalyst 9000 series network switches and addresses the interpretation of patent claims regarding latency reduction in processing data packets and headers in wireless network transmissions.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.Respondent
AYLO Premium Ltd filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, with DISH Technologies L.L.C. as defendant. AYLO subsequently requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, seeking at least EUR 400,000 from DISH Technologies, citing alleged insolvency risks supported by SEC filings of DISH's parent companies. The Court invited further observations from both parties and held an interim conference before referring the matter to a full panel, which issued its order on 18 February 2025.
IMS Robotics GmbH, IMS Robotics Nordic A/S v.Respondent
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 2 129 956. The Claimant (Per Aarsleff A/S) filed a patent infringement action on 20 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 28 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties jointly sought to withdraw their respective claims and requested partial reimbursement of court fees, with no cost decision sought by either side.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 17/02/2025 suivant la conférence de mise en état (R. 105.5 RdP) DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par Pauline Debré 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-g
Footbridge Group AB , Brunngård Group AB v.Imbox Protection A/S
Imbox Protection A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 276 862, filed an application to preserve evidence and inspect property against Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB regarding their EXPRO HUB product. After the Defendants submitted detailed objections demonstrating non-infringement, the Applicant withdrew the application. The Court granted the Defendants' requests for confidentiality protection over Exhibits 17-19 and awarded each Defendant SEK 225,000 in legal costs and expenses, applying a joint ceiling of EUR 38,000 for representation costs.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This is a rectification order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent related to heart valve prostheses. Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (the defendants in the underlying infringement action) applied under Rule 353 RoP to rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, and obvious slips in the court's decision of 15 November 2024. The court granted several rectifications relating to factual inaccuracies on pages 13, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53, and 59 of the decision, while dismissing the remaining requests.
Insulet Corporation v.Respondent
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits, since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore,
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits, since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore,
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appealed a decision by the UPC Local Division The Hague that denied its request for a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. (collectively "Sibionics") for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose monitoring device. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order, finding that the patent claims did not contain added matter, and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sibionics from infringing the patent with its GS1 CGM product, along with information and delivery-up orders.
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.