technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 36 of 58 · 1,714 total
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH
GXD-Bio Corporation sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 346 403 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants filed a preliminary objection arguing the court lacked competence to adjudicate claims for acts predating GXD-Bio's recordal as patent proprietor. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the defendants' arguments concerned standing and substantive ownership rather than jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and allowed an appeal.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
This is a scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. The order sets dates for the interim conference (6 October 2025) and the oral hearing (10 December 2025), and requests the assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondents
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned whether a European Patent Attorney who is also a party to proceedings must be represented by an independent representative under Rule 8.1 RoP. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they themselves are parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position (such as Chair of the Board) cannot represent a legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB 14 days to appoint authorised representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Ona Patents SL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 12 February 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1. The order addresses an application under Rule 262A RoP to protect confidential information, classifying certain information contained in the unredacted Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defense and related exhibits as confidential, and restricting access to designated representatives of the Claimant.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich ruled on a jurisdiction objection raised by the defendants in an infringement action concerning EP 3 685 783. The court held that the Munich chamber was competent to hear the infringement case, rejecting the defendants' argument under Article 33(2) EPGÜ that the Düsseldorf chamber should have jurisdiction. The court reasoned that at the time the infringement action was filed on November 20, 2024, no parallel action under Article 32(1)(a), (c), (f), (g) or (h) was pending before another first-instance chamber, since the prior interim measures application had already been appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Meril Italy srl v.Respondents
This appeal concerned an order of the Central Division Paris (14 October 2024) granting Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB access to pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings between Meril Italy and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Meril Italy challenged the validity of the access request, arguing that Respondent 1's self-representation was impermissible under Art. 48 UPCA and that he could not validly represent SWAT Medical AB as its Board Chair. The Court of Appeal held that representation is a matter of public policy that may be examined at any time, and that neither self-representation nor representation by a person holding a high-level management position is permitted before the UPC.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Hamburg Local Division that had denied Daedalus Prime LLC's two US attorneys access to confidential information disclosed by Xiaomi in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 792 100. The Court held that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require the person granted access to be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA, and that the US attorneys' technical expertise and familiarity with the patent justified granting them full access. The orders of the judge-rapporteur of 30 July 2024 and 3 September 2024 were amended to extend access to the two US attorneys.
Supponor Oy v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by AIM Sport Development AG (formerly AIM Sport Vision AG) against five defendants regarding European Patent No. EP3295663. The Helsinki Local Division had initially dismissed the action for lack of competence, but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision and referred the case back. The present procedural order addresses AIM Sport's applications under Rule 263 RoP to amend its claims and grounds, and under Rule 305 RoP to add a new defendant to the proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Court of First Instance's decision declaring inadmissible Suinno's R. 262A RoP application for confidentiality, on the ground that Suinno's representative, who was also its managing director and main shareholder, could not be considered independent under Art. 48(5) UPCA. The Court of Appeal held that no corporate representative or natural person holding extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal person may serve as that legal person's representative before the UPC, regardless of whether they are otherwise qualified as a UPC representative.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts, erlassen am 10.02.2025 KLÄGERIN BSN Medical GmbH, Schützenstraße 1-3, 22761 Hamburg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Christian Stoll Hogan Lovells International LLP, Alstertor 2, 20095 Hamburg, Deutschla
ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, in which Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against four ASUS entities. Before the written procedure concluded, Dolby withdrew its infringement action following an out-of-court settlement, and the ASUS defendants sought to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. Both parties agreed that each would bear their own costs and requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The court issued its decision in accordance with the parties' jointly expressed wishes.
XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Italia S.r.l. v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that took place before the UPCA entered into force on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and subsequent opt-in. The court held that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on pre-entry-into-force acts of use. The defendants' auxiliary request for a stay and referral to the CJEU was also rejected, and appeal was allowed.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, in which Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against several ASUS entities. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its infringement action and the ASUS defendants to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. The court issued an order confirming the withdrawals, that each party bears its own costs, and granting a 60% partial reimbursement of the court fees paid upon filing.
Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A., ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Division Munich addressed an objection by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that occurred before the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) entered into force and during the period of an opt-out. The court held that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA, Art. 2(g), and Art. 3(c) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on such pre-UPCA and opt-out period acts of use. The court further clarified that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate legal concepts that must be assessed independently of one another.
SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This case concerns a cost-setting decision by the Local Chamber Munich following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures. The applicants, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy, sought reimbursement of approximately €91,568.76 in costs from Tiroler Rohre GmbH, who had been ordered to bear the costs after withdrawing the interim measures application. The respondent argued the costs were excessive and requested a cap of €30,000, contending that the number of representatives and hours billed were disproportionate to the case's complexity.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
Ericsson filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to classify certain information related to ongoing FRAND license negotiations as confidential and restrict its disclosure in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 780 758. Motorola Mobility LLC opposed the application, arguing that most of the information originated from its own parent group, Lenovo, and there was no justification for restricting a party's access to its own information. The Local Division Munich rejected the application in its entirety.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
This preliminary procedural order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, on February 7, 2025, in proceedings brought by Dainese S.p.A. against multiple defendants including Alpinestars entities and retailers. Dainese sought an extension of its deadline for filing its Defence to Counterclaims for revocation and its Reply to the statements of defence filed by Defendants 2 and 6, from February 13, 2025 to February 27, 2025, citing coordination with an EPO oral hearing scheduled for February 13, 2025. The Court granted the extension, finding that the same coordination reasons previously accepted for Defendant 1 applied equally to the Claimant, and emphasized the principle of parity between attacking and defending parties.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich addressed a preliminary objection raised by Motorola Mobility LLC against a second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 filed by Ericsson. Motorola argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to lis pendens, as the validity of the same patent was already subject to prior proceedings between the same parties in the same court. The Judge-rapporteur allowed the preliminary objection, holding that Article 33(2) UPCA applies equally when the same parties bring duplicative actions on the same patent before the same division, and dismissed the second counterclaim as inadmissible without a separate costs decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court on 5 February 2025 in an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation concerning European patent n° 3669828. The order summons the parties to an oral hearing scheduled for 11 February 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Munich, and provides standard procedural information regarding review, public access, audio recording, and consequences of absence.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request under Rule 36 RoP filed by the Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd, seeking further exchanges of written pleadings in an infringement action based on European Patent EP3155936 against NUC Electronics entities and Warmcook. Hurom sought a declaration that certain sections of its Rejoinder challenged by the Defendants were admissible, or alternatively, permission for both parties to submit further statements. The Defendants opposed the request, arguing that the allegedly new arguments were mere clarifications and that, as defendants in infringement proceedings, they should have the last word.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a jointly filed counterclaim for revocation before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The parties, Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and several Xiaomi entities along with Odiporo GmbH and Shamrock Mobile GmbH as defendants, reached a settlement and jointly withdrew their respective claims regarding European Patent EP 3069315. The court issued the order in accordance with the parties' jointly expressed will and addressed the reimbursement of court fees, granting a 40% reimbursement and rejecting the request for a higher 60% reimbursement.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order following the parties' settlement, resulting in the withdrawal of the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against several Xiaomi entities and other defendants, as well as the joint nullity counterclaim filed by the defendants. The court confirmed the parties' agreement and addressed the cost consequences, including an increase in the dispute value from 4 to 8 million euros, which led to additional court fees owed by the plaintiff.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V., ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED, Novartis AG
This is a preliminary order concerning an application by STADAPHARM GmbH under Rule 261.1(b) RoP seeking access to written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings (UPC_CFI_698/2024) pending before the Milan Central Division. The main proceedings involve a declaratory non-infringement action brought by three Accord Healthcare Group companies against Novartis AG regarding Novartis's patent EP2501384 (relating to Nilotinib). STADAPHARM claimed a specific interest in accessing the documents because Novartis had obtained a preliminary injunction against STADAPHARM before the Munich Regional Court based on the same patent. The order addresses procedural questions regarding the scope of Rule 262.1(b) access applications, the lodging of non-digitally signed submissions under Rule 4.1 RoP, and the hearing of parties under Rule 264 RoP.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court amended its prior order of 23 December 2024 to add three named individuals to the group of persons authorized to access confidential information, while rejecting the request to grant a fourth individual (Ms. [...]) separate access.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The parties reached a settlement and jointly filed applications on December 20, 2024, to withdraw the proceedings following the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ruled that each party bears its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 548 648, which relates to a mill for crushing/grinding material, particularly wood chips. Both parties are providers of forestry machinery. The plaintiff, Rematec GmbH & Co KG, as the proprietor of the patent, alleged that the defendant, Europe Forestry B.V., infringed the patent by selling mills marketed as 'Europe Grinders' and 'Europe Chip Mills.' The defendant raised a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim held an oral hearing on November 27, 2024, and rendered its decision on January 31, 2025.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
This is a preparatory order issued by the Mannheim Local Division in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 476 616, brought by FUJIFILM Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order sets out preliminary views and questions ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 11–13 February 2025, addressing issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law for pre- and post-UPCA infringing acts, the value of the dispute, prior use defences, and validity questions concerning prior art documents WO 379 and US 952.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities regarding European Patent No. 2 793 430. The defendants jointly requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence with Counterclaim for Revocation to 11 March 2025. The Presiding Judge granted the request based on the parties' agreement and the minimal extension period involved.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 511 174, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese for its representatives at the oral hearing, which the Kodak defendants opposed. The court allowed FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense but declined to make the interpretation costs part of the proceedings' costs.
Dexcom Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerned infringement proceedings and counterclaims for revocation brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited regarding European Patent EP4070727. All parties requested withdrawal of their respective claims and consented to the closure of the proceedings, with no cost decision requested. The Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant, amounting to EUR 7,400, while setting the value of the cases at EUR 4,000,000.
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.