technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 39 of 58 · 1,714 total
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.
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.
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.