technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 41 of 51 · 1,511 total
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against five defendants, including Chinese and Taiwanese entities, seeking to serve the Statement of claim on the Chinese Xiaomi companies via Xiaomi Germany and on MediaTek (Taiwan) via MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The Local Division dismissed the request, holding that service must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected Daedalus's appeal, confirming that group companies in Contracting Member States cannot automatically be treated as statutory seats, central administrations, or principal places of business of defendants domiciled in China or Taiwan, and that Hague Convention methods (for China) and diplomatic/consular channels (for Taiwan) must first be attempted.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., , TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The sole issue addressed in this order was whether proper service had been effected on Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.), which is domiciled in China. The Court held that service was validly completed on 11 May 2024, accepting the defendant's own statement as proof of service.
Orbisk B.V. v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_327/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 06/08/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Orbisk B.V. (Defendant) - Kanaalweg 29 A - 3526 KM - Utrecht - NL Statement of
Manfred Sauer GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a request by the defendants (Applicants) to dispense with translation of German-language exhibits filed in patent infringement proceedings relating to European patent EP 2 911 727. The Court dismissed the request, holding that the panel as a whole lacked sufficient German language skills and that the number, scope, and nature of the eleven exhibits made it disproportionate to waive the translation requirement. The Applicants had already filed machine translations as an auxiliary measure, thereby complying with Rule 7(1) RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for re-trial (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens) filed by 10x Genomics and Harvard College against NanoString Technologies. The re-trial application challenged the Court of Appeal's earlier order of February 26, 2024, which had overturned a first-instance interim injunction in favor of 10x and ordered 10x to bear the costs. The application alleged fundamental procedural errors, including violation of the right to be heard and Article 6 ECHR. The Court of Appeal addressed key principles regarding the interpretation of its own reasoning, the non-reviewability of evidentiary assessment in re-trial proceedings, and the legal basis for cost allocation in summary proceedings.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_41/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in the main proceedings related to European Patent 3 780 758 delivered on 06/08/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim: 30/01/2024 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Defendant
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning European Patent EP 3 339 920 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Following an out-of-court settlement reached between the parties, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, confirmed the parties' cost-sharing arrangement, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
The defendant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court sought security for costs of EUR 400,000, arguing that the Israeli claimant's foreign domicile created enforcement risks and that the claimant initiated proceedings to cause material harm. The claimant, part of the PepsiCo group, opposed the request, citing its financial strength and the applicability of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure. The court dismissed the request, holding that the mere location of the claimant's registered office in Israel and unsubstantiated doubts about compliance with a future cost decision did not justify ordering security for costs.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH for the release of a security deposit under Rule 352.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf had previously granted Ortovox an ex parte interim injunction on December 11, 2023, against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, requiring security of EUR 500,000 in the form of either a deposit or a bank guarantee. After Ortovox initially deposited the amount and later also provided a bank guarantee, creating double security, the court addressed whether the original deposit could be released.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1 in an infringement action brought by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. against expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, with Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. intervening. The order addresses the plaintiff's application under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to file a further amendment of the patent, following an initial amendment request filed on March 23, 2024 in response to a counterclaim for revocation by the second defendant. The court held that the timing of the decision on admissibility of a further amendment request lies within the discretion of the court, and that the two-month response period under Rule 32.1 RoP does not apply to subsequent amendment requests under Rule 30.2 RoP.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH
The Court of Appeal addressed the service of a patent infringement statement of claim on Xiaomi entities located in China and Hong Kong. It held that service cannot be effected merely through a sister Xiaomi company domiciled in a contracting member state, as such a group company cannot automatically be treated as the defendant's registered seat, head office, principal place of business, or a place of business under Rule 271.5(a). The Court further held that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention pursuant to Rule 274.1(a)(ii) must generally be pursued before resorting to alternative service methods under Rule 275.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns EP 3 594 009 B1, where FUJIFILM (Claimant) sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to change its conditional application to amend the patent, originally limited to the German designation, to extend to all designations. The Court rejected the application under Rule 263 RoP but reclassified the amended set of requests as a subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP and allowed it, while rejecting the Defendants' alternative request for an extension of time limits.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
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 02/08/2024 concernant R.191 RdP DEMANDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Harris County, TX, 77389, USA - 77389 - H
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the service of a patent infringement complaint on Xiaomi H.K. Limited in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 207 270. The Local Chamber Mannheim addressed the question of alternative service under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure after service attempts via the Hague Service Convention were refused by the requested state's central authority. The court established principles regarding when alternative service is permissible, the absence of judicial censorship of party submissions, and the publication requirements for orders recognizing prior service steps as valid service.
Amycel LLC v.***
Amycel LLC filed an application for provisional measures alleging that the Defendant infringed its European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 by selling a brown mushroom strain under the name 'Cayene'. The Defendant raised invalidity arguments, contending that the mushroom strain was excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC. The Court of First Instance, Local Division The Hague, rejected the exclusion argument, found infringement, and granted the provisional measures sought.
Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_425/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 31/07/2024 concerning R. 191 RoP APPLICANT 1) Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. 1360 South Loop Road 94502 - Alameda - US Represented by Christian Dekoninck RESPONDENTS 1) Dexcom
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns service-of-process issues in a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi H.K. Limited regarding European Patent EP 3 096 315. The defendant had been separated from the main proceedings because service at the Düsseldorf address of Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH was unsuccessful, and the Hague Service Convention Central Authority of the requested state had refused service on political grounds. The Local Chamber Mannheim held that no further alternative service attempt under Rule 275.1 is required once Rules 270–274 have been exhausted and the Central Authority has definitively refused service, and ordered that the prior service steps be recognized as valid service, with publication on the court's homepage.
DexCom Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott s.r.l., Abbott GmbH, Abbott B.V., Abbott France (S.A.S.), Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott (S.A./N.V.), Abbott Diagnostics GmbH
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities alleging that their FreeStyle Libre 2 glucose monitoring system infringed EP 3 797 685 B1, which relates to communication systems between a sensor electronics unit and a display device in an analyte monitoring system. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, and the Munich Local Division found the patent invalid for lacking an inventive step over the prior art (Berman) when supplemented with common general knowledge. The patent was revoked in its entirety, auxiliary requests were dismissed, and all infringement claims were dismissed with costs borne by the claimant.
Dolby International AB v.HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Finland Oy, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP Austria GmbH, HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc Danmark ApS, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP It
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1 and addresses the treatment of an intervener (Access Advance LLC) in proceedings brought by Dolby International AB against fifteen HP entities. The court established that, unless otherwise ordered, an intervener is treated as a party under Rule 315.4 of the Rules of Procedure and may apply for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A regarding information contained in their submissions.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request for expedition of its appeal against an order of the Hamburg Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning EP 3167888. The court held that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time limit for the respondent's statement of response, and that Alexion's arguments about seeking patent protection quickly and the appeal involving a purely legal issue were insufficient.
BEGO Medical GmbH v.CEAD USA B.V., CEAD B.V.
This order concerns a request for confidentiality protection under Rules 262A and 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure in a nullity action regarding EP 2 681 034 B1. The defendant/applicant BEGO Medical GmbH sought access restrictions for information about its attorney costs submitted in annexes to its brief following an interim hearing under Rule 104(k). The judge-rapporteur addressed the interplay between inter-party confidentiality under Rule 262A and public access restrictions under Rule 262.2, establishing guiding principles for balancing the relevant interests.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This procedural order concerns an intervention application filed by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. in a patent infringement action brought by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH regarding European Patent EP 2 643 717 B1. The patent relates to a color and light mixing collective optic for outdoor imaging display panels. STRABAG had installed LED variable message signs supplied by Chainzone at Austrian motorway locations under a contract from ASFINAG. The court addressed the admissibility of the intervention and the question of whether the intervener could be ordered to provide security for costs.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.
Amgen Inc. brought a patent infringement action against Sanofi and Regeneron entities concerning European Patent 3,666,797 and their drug Praluent (Alirocumab). The defendants had filed revocation actions, and the Central Division revoked the patent in its entirety on 16 July 2024. Both parties agreed to stay the infringement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation decision, and the court granted the stay.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.Respondent
An intellectual property firm, Mathys & Squire LLP, applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The respondents, BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation, did not submit any comments. The judge-rapporteur granted the application, finding that since the proceedings had come to an end, the interests opposing publication under Article 45 UPCA were not substantial enough to override the requester's interest in accessing the documents.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
BITZER Electronics A/S brought a revocation action against Carrier Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 414 708 B1, which relates to an apparatus and method for cold chain monitoring of perishable goods. The claimant alleged the patent was invalid due to added subject matter, insufficient disclosure, lack of novelty over several prior art documents, and lack of inventive step. The defendant filed a statement of defence along with a main request and twelve auxiliary requests to amend the patent. The court addressed procedural issues concerning the admissibility of amendments to non-attacked claims and the permissibility of new grounds for revocation raised in the reply.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a request by Powell Gilbert LLP, a member of the public, for access to written pleadings and evidence from prior preliminary injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_131/2024) involving European Patent EP3831283. Abbott opposed the request, arguing that its appeal of the refused preliminary injunction meant the proceedings were still ongoing and that the integrity of the proceedings remained at issue. The Judge-Rapporteur applied the criteria from the Ocado v AutoStore decision and granted public access to the register pursuant to Rule 262.1 RoP.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_501/2023 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 29/07/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 27/12/2023 Meril GmbH (Defendant) - Bornheimer Straße 135- 137 - 53119 - Bonn - DE Statement of claim
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three Asian TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal held that service by email to a person not authorized to accept service, and public service by written notice displayed at the court's premises, were not permissible at this stage of the proceedings. The appeal was rejected, with the Court confirming that Hague Convention service attempts should normally be made before alternative methods of service can be employed.
Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal addressed a procedural question regarding where a cost determination application (Kostenfestsetzung) must be filed when it follows an order or decision of the Court of Appeal. Both parties agreed, and the Court of Appeal confirmed, that such applications must be filed with the Court of First Instance and decided by the Rapporteur of that instance, even when the application relates exclusively or partially to the costs of the appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute concerned EP 3883277, where the Local Chamber Munich had rejected VusionGroup's application for interim measures and ordered it to bear Hanshow's costs.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Respondent
This order concerned an application by Powell Gilbert LLP, acting as a member of the public, for public access to written pleadings and evidence lodged in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2713879, owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The main proceedings had concluded with a final order, though an appeal was pending. Applying the criteria from the Ocado v AutoStore precedent, the Judge-Rapporteur weighed the interest in public access against the protection of the integrity of the proceedings and the parties' interests, and granted the application for public access to the register under Rule 262.1 RoP.
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.