technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 39 of 51 · 1,511 total
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the preparation and structuring of the oral hearing in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sues several Xiaomi entities and other defendants. The presiding judge coordinated the hearing date and provided detailed instructions on the structure of the proceedings, with the first day dedicated to technical aspects (uniform interpretation of the patent, validity, and standard-essential infringement) and the second day to FRAND-related issues.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.Respondent
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) against ITCiCo Spain S.L. regarding European Patent EP 2 796 333, which relates to a graded control signal system for warning vehicle users of speeding conditions. The claimant sought a decision by default under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure after the defendant failed to submit any request or defense. The court examined the conditions for issuing a default decision, considering the requirements of Rule 355 and the discretionary assessment under Rule 335.
ICPillar LLC v.SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Germany GmbH, Apical Limited, Arm Sweden AB, ARM Limited
ICPillar LLC appealed a Court of First Instance order requiring it to provide security for costs (EUR 400,000) in its patent infringement action against ARM entities before the Paris Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the Insurance Policy submitted for the first time on appeal would be disregarded under R.222.2 RoP, and that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank did not constitute adequate security under R.158 RoP.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Microsoft Corporation for review and setting aside of an order restricting access to documents deemed business secrets in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The respondent, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, had successfully obtained a confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, limiting access to certain Microsoft attorneys and directors. Microsoft filed alternative requests including dismissal of the Rule 262A application, a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on representative independence requirements, amendment of the access list, and leave to appeal. The available text of the order is incomplete and does not contain the panel's full reasoning or operative ruling.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application with the Court of First Instance of the UPC Paris Central Division seeking annulment of a decision of the European Patent Office (EPO) dated 10 July 2024, made in carrying out tasks under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012. The Court forwarded the application for interlocutory revision to the EPO, which subsequently rectified the contested decision in accordance with the Claimant's request. As the Claimant did not identify any particular circumstances justifying reimbursement, the Court closed the case without prior consultation of the parties.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc.,
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued several Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 B1, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. The dispute concerned the interpretation of claim 20 of the patent and whether the Belkin defendants' activities constituted patent infringement. The Local Chamber Munich issued its main decision on 13 September 2024, addressing issues including claim construction, the definition of an infringer, and the possibility of injunctions against company officers as intermediaries.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court decided, pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) of the EPG Agreement in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Grundfos Holding A/S against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. and the defendant's counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The decision was made before the close of the written procedure, with the consent of both parties, in order to allow early assignment of the technically qualified judge and to avoid scheduling delays.
Primetals TechnologiesAustria GMBH v.Danieli &c. spa Danieli Automation spa
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2624977 relating to a driver for a steel strip coiling installation, filed an ex-parte application for preserving evidence and inspection against Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A. before the Local Division in Milan of the Unified Patent Court. The applicant alleged that during a September 2023 visit to its customer Nucor Steel Gallatin in Kentucky, US, it discovered a driver for a steel strip coiler manufactured by the Danieli group that appeared to reproduce the teachings of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 of EP977. The applicant sought an order for inspection of the defendants' premises to collect and preserve technical, advertising, and commercial documentation relating to the allegedly infringing drivers.
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning the correction of party designation in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The plaintiff had originally named a non-existent entity 'Lenovo EMEA DC' as the fifth defendant, which defendants 1-4 argued was not a party-capable entity under Dutch law. The court addressed whether the plaintiff could correct the party designation to identify the correct defendant, Flextronics International Europe B.V., by way of analogous application of Rule 305 of the Rules of Procedure.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 197 316 B1 concerning an oral cleaning system with motivational feedback for electric toothbrush users, filed an application for provisional measures against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese company selling 'Oclean' brand electric toothbrushes. The dispute concerned the alleged infringement by Philips of the 'X Ultra S' and 'X Pro Digital' toothbrush models being exhibited at IFA 2024 in Berlin. The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on September 9, 2024, addressing the application for interim injunctive relief.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. The order revokes a prior directive that had appointed a translation expert, after the parties agreed that the defendants' submitted translation of the priority application could be used and that the relevant Chinese-language documents were identical with respect to the passages relevant to the dispute, particularly regarding 'Preferred Embodiment 2.'
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., v.Respondent
1 Hamburg – Local Division UPC_CFI_88/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued: 09/09/2024 PARTIES: Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, represented by Herrn Götzl, Sandhofer Straße 116, 68305 Mannheim, Germany, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 1
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 372 863. The plaintiff, Philips IP Ventures B.V., requested postponement of the oral hearing originally scheduled for September 11, 2024, citing the rescheduling of a parallel proceeding's decision date and the strategic importance of another related case. The defendants consented to the postponement, and the presiding judge granted the request, rescheduling the hearing to October 23, 2024.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a review under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in three parallel proceedings relating to European Patents EP 2 568 724, EP 2 207 270, and EP 2 315. The defendants challenged the rapporteur's order that only partially granted their request to extend the deadline for filing a rejoinder to the plaintiff's reply on the non-technical (FRAND) part. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on the review of the time-limit extension request.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
This case concerns a panel review of an order dismissing a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Defendant, Aarke AB, sought security of EUR 400,000, arguing that enforcement of a UPC cost order in Israel would be impossible or unduly burdensome due to the reciprocity requirement under Israeli law. The panel dismissed the application for review, finding that the Claimant (part of the PepsiCo group) was financially capable of complying with a cost order and that no sufficient facts supported a likelihood of unenforceability, while granting leave to appeal.
Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft. v.Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc.
1. Art. 25 UPCA constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws and whose content is to be inter- preted independently by the Court. 2. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer has al- ready set the stage for it to occur. The infringement is only a matter of starting the action
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Central Division, Paris Seat, which had rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing the risk of an injunction in parallel infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, holding that the interests advanced by Meril did not justify shortening the procedural timetable at Edwards' expense.
Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) that rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing potential irreparable harm from a possible injunction in parallel infringement proceedings and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, finding that Meril's interests did not outweigh Edwards' legitimate interest in having the appeals proceed according to the regular timetable.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.1. Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, 2. S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The applicant, Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG, sought provisional measures against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International to prevent the offering, distribution, and storage of an optical fiber for treating venous diseases ('Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber'), alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1. The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf rejected the application for interim measures without an oral hearing, finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the substantive necessity of provisional measures. The court held that the applicant had not adequately shown why its legal protection诉求 could not be sufficiently addressed through main proceedings.
Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This is an appeal order concerning the referral of an infringement action from the Local Chamber Mannheim to the Central Division Paris. Advanced Bionics sought to have the infringement case transferred to the Central Division to be heard together with a nullity action they had filed against the same patent (EP 4074373). The Court of Appeal held that a connection for related cases under Rule 340 of the Rules of Procedure cannot result in a case being referred to another chamber outside the possibilities provided by Article 33 UPCA, and that Article 33 UPCA does not permit the referral of an infringement action from a local chamber to the central chamber without the parties' consent.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l v.Insulet Corporation
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 04/09/2024 Order no. ORD_45723/2024 APPLICANT 1) A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Applicant) - Via Dei Sette Santi 3 - 50131 - Florence – IT Represented
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This appeal concerned the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2479680, owned by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and exclusively licensed to Sling TV L.L.C. The appellants, AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYlo Freesites Ltd, challenged an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim dated April 5, 2024. The Court of Appeal clarified that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) and Article 71b(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and alleged damage may occur there, including through internet-based activities accessible in that territory.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L v.Respondent
This order concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants had submitted three third-party license agreements with their rejoinder and sought access restrictions exceeding the previously established confidentiality regime. The Local Chamber Mannheim, presided by Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, issued an order with access restrictions corresponding to the existing confidentiality regime, falling short of the defendants' newly requested restrictions for two of the license agreements.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH regarding European Patent No. 3 024 163. The plaintiff sought to extend the lawsuit to include OTECH Germany GmbH as an additional defendant, arguing that OTECH had taken over the smartphone sales activities previously handled by OROPE and had already been found liable for patent infringement by the Mannheim Regional Court in June 2023. The defendants opposed the extension as inadmissible and untimely, contending the plaintiff could and should have sued OTECH directly or filed the extension request much earlier.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
ORDER Of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued on 2/09/2024 APPLICANT: (in the main proceedings, respondent in the procedural application) Valeo Electrification, 14 avenue des Béguines, 95800 Cergy, France, represented by the President Thierry Kalanquin, wit
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE before the Local Chamber Munich. The dispute involves European Patent No. 1 838 002 B1, titled 'Programmable Hybrid Transmitter,' which is in force only in Germany. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants infringe claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12 of the patent, which relate to a transmitter architecture with a baseband processing module, an up-conversion module, and a power amplifier circuit operating in first and second modes. The decision was rendered on August 30, 2024, following an oral hearing held on June 25, 2024.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG v.Ona Patents SL
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns a request for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The plaintiff Ona Patents SL brought the action against multiple Apple entities. The court found the request admissible and granted it to the extent ordered, holding that the existence of a negative fact does not per se exclude the need for confidentiality protection, and that even statements indicating that certain products do not support certain functionalities may qualify as confidential.
UPC Decision UPC-001299 v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against three Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989 B1. The patent relates to technology implemented in devices using the Wi-Fi 6 standard, which the defendants manufacture and distribute. The order was issued by the presiding judge acting as rapporteur under Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure, with the proceedings conducted in German.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on August 27, 2024, concerning a request for a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out five guiding legal principles addressing direct versus indirect patent infringement liability under the 'extended workbench' doctrine, the scope of injunctive relief for indirect infringement, limitations on validity arguments in preliminary proceedings, and temporal urgency requirements. The court found that the contested program library combined with videos and documentation did not meet the standard for direct infringement liability, as alternative programming possibilities meant completion of the patented device could not be established with certainty.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/08/2024 concernant une demande d’audition de témoin à l’audience orale (R.176 et 177 RdP) ABSTRACT : 1. Les questions orales posées au témoin, auteur
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.