technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 42 of 51 · 1,511 total
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against the denial of its preliminary injunction application by the UPC Local Division The Hague regarding patent EP 3 831 283. Abbott had submitted four auxiliary requests in its appeal, which the Respondents sought to have disregarded. The Court of Appeal decided to defer ruling on the allowability of the auxiliary requests to the oral hearing and granted the Respondents an extension of deadline for their Statement of response, ultimately rejecting Abbott's requests in its R.9 RoP application.
CANÈ S.p.A. v.FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_419/2023 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 26/07/2024 DEMANDEUR 1) CANÈ S.p.A. Via Cuorgnè 42/A 10098 - Rivoli (TO) - IT Représenté par Konstantin Schallmoser DÉFENDEUR 1) FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, in which the applicant Valeo Electrification sought leave to amend its application for provisional measures by deleting the word 'alternatively' from its claim, thereby converting an alternative claim into a main claim. The court granted leave, holding that Rule 263 RoP applies to provisional measure proceedings and that the amendment constituted an unconditional limitation under R. 263.3 RoP that did not unduly prejudice the defendants.
OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v.***
1 Beschikking van het Hof van Beroep van het Eengemaakt Octrooigerecht gegeven op 26 juli 2024 NOOT: Een verzoek om opschortende werking met betrekking tot een beschikking van het Gerecht om de in het Procesreglement bepaalde termijn voor de indiening van een conclusie van een part
Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, ARM Limited, Arm France SAS, SVF Holdco, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited v.ICPillar LLC
This appeal concerned a security for costs order granted in favor of ARM Limited and its affiliated entities against ICPillar LLC in underlying infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3000239. ICPillar sought to have the security order set aside and initially requested confidentiality over an insurance policy (Exhibit 4) attached to its Statement of Appeal. After the Court of Appeal rejected the confidentiality request and the unredacted document was made available, ICPillar sought permission to amend its own Statement of Appeal and grounds of appeal to maintain equality of arms. The Court of Appeal rejected this request, holding that ICPillar controlled the redactions from the outset and could have lodged redacted grounds of appeal initially.
NanoString v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning EP 2 794 928 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant (Harvard) sought to introduce further written submissions and two expert reports shortly before the oral hearing, prompted by the German Federal Patent Court's revocation of the German part of the patent. The Judge-rapporteur dismissed the request, holding that it violated the front-loaded character of UPC proceedings and would unfairly prejudice the Claimant.
WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a Rule 9 RoP application by the defendants in a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 028 981. The defendants sought permission to submit video recordings (Exhibits D 7b and D 7c) referenced in their statement of defence on USB sticks, as the files exceeded the maximum upload size for the CMS. The judge-rapporteur granted permission to submit the physical exhibits but directed the defendants to follow the prescribed procedure for registering physical exhibits to the CMS via a separate application workflow.
Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_169/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 25/07/2024 APPLICANT/S 3) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. (Defendant) - Prinses Beatrixlaan 582 - 2595BM - The Hague (Den Haag) - DE Represented by
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Respondent
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH brought an infringement action against Tandem Diabetes Care Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., and VitalAire GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg based on European Patent EP 2196231. The defendants (Tandem Diabetes) filed an application under Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that when balancing the interests of both parties—who are international companies operating worldwide—the position of the defendant is the decisive factor when the outcome of the balancing is equal.
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 24/07/2024 DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par Pauline Debré 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-gil, Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do - Répub
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v.AWM S.R.L., SCHNELL S.P.A.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 23 July 2024, addressing procedural questions concerning applications for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 192 et seq. RoP. The order establishes that such applications imply a request to disclose the outcome of the measures to the applicant, but that disclosure must be subject to the protection of confidential information. The Court clarifies that the defendant must be heard on disclosure requests even if they have not filed a remedy against the underlying preservation order, and that failure to seek review cannot be construed as tacit approval of disclosure.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/07/2024 Order no. ORD_40568/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (Applicant) - Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid - DE Represent
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Respondent
Two revocation actions brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine against proprietors of European Patents EP 3 056 563 and EP 3 056 564 were disposed of by the Central Division (Section Munich) after the parties reached a settlement. The Court held that parties may conclude their action by way of settlement without seeking a confirmatory Court decision under Rule 365 RoP, and disposed of the actions under Rule 360 RoP as they had become devoid of purpose. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees in each action, ruling that Rule 370.9(c) RoP is not limited to Court-confirmed settlements.
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/07/2024 Order no. ORD_40568/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (Applicant) - Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid - DE Represent
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A
This order of the Court of Appeal addresses the interpretation of Article 60 UPCA regarding applications for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises. The court clarified that such applications imply disclosure of the evidence to the applicant, but this disclosure is subject to confidentiality protections. The court must hear the other party before deciding on disclosure, and the opportunity for confidentiality requests is distinct from remedies against the preservation order itself.
Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, ARM Limited, Arm France SAS, SVF Holdco, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited v.ICPillar LLC
This case concerns an appeal in a main infringement action involving patent EP 3000239, where ICPillar appealed an order requiring it to provide adequate security for legal costs. ICPillar sought to keep parts of an insurance policy (Exhibit 4) confidential, but the Court of Appeal rejected this request. The Court then addressed ICPillar's argument that it should be allowed to amend its Statement of appeal to maintain equality of arms, which the Court also rejected.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.Respondent
This order concerns a dispute over confidentiality protection and access restrictions in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 2 479 680. The defendants (AYLO entities) had requested access restrictions under Rule 262A RoP regarding information about the functioning of the accused embodiments contained in their reply. The Rapporteur issued a confidentiality order on 03.07.2024 granting access to the plaintiffs' legal representatives and three named natural persons. The defendants sought review under Rule 333 RoP, arguing that the three named individuals should be excluded because they are responsible for strategic decisions in parallel US proceedings and could not disregard the confidential information once obtained.
Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP International SARL, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP Austria GmbH, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP France SAS, HP v.Dolby International AB
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed the treatment of an intervener (Access Advance LLC) under the Rules of Procedure, holding that unless otherwise ordered, an intervener is treated as a party pursuant to R. 315.4 RoP and is therefore entitled to the protections of R. 262A.6 RoP. The ruling clarified that the circle of persons authorized to access confidential information must include at least one natural person beyond the intervener's procedural representatives.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation u. a.
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl against European Patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, relating to prosthetic heart valve systems with sealing mechanisms to prevent perivalvular leakage. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation. The claimant argued that the patent was invalid for several reasons, including that the subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. The patent at issue was filed on 16 July 2012 as a divisional application and claims priority from US applications of 15 July 2011 and 13 July 2012.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action and counterclaims for revocation regarding European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to prosthetic heart valve systems with sealing mechanisms to prevent perivalvular leakage. Meril Italy Srl filed the main revocation action, while Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation against the patent proprietor Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The claimant argued, among other grounds, that the patent's subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Respondent
This is a procedural decision of the Local Division Brussels concerning an Application for Review filed by the defendants against a prior case management order. The defendants, OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV, sought review of Order ORD_37783/2024 of 8 July 2024, which had rejected their objection against the claimant's equivalence arguments while granting an extension for filing a Statement of Rejoinder until 1 August 2024. The underlying dispute relates to European Patent EP 2 331 036 and concerns the permissibility of the claimant supplementing factual context, adding equivalence-based infringement arguments, and adjusting the prayer for relief in their Reply to the Statement of Defence.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding European Patent No. EP 3 646 825, which relates to embodiments of a prosthetic heart valve featuring a sealing mechanism to prevent or minimize perivalvular leakage. The patent was filed on 16 July 2012 as a divisional application and claims priority from two earlier patent applications of 15 July 2011 and 13 July 2012. The claimant sought revocation of the patent on grounds including that the subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation in the proceedings.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, sets out key legal principles on claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step. The panel (Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß, Judge-Rapporteur András Kupecz, and technically qualified judge Casper Struve) addressed issues including the technical meaning of claim terms, the 'same invention' test for priority, the identification of realistic starting points in the prior art, and the criteria for assessing obviousness and inventive contribution.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addresses key legal principles relating to claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step and obviousness. The judgment establishes headnotes on how the skilled person interprets patent claims using the description and drawings, the standard for claiming the 'same invention' for priority purposes, and the framework for evaluating obviousness and inventive contribution.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
This case concerns a counterclaim for revocation of European patent EP 3 666 797 B1 before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The Claimant, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., sought revocation of the patent held by the Defendant, Amgen, Inc., with both parties being competitors in the cholesterol-lowering pharmaceutical market. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addressed key legal principles including claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe v.Amgen, Inc.
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section). The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addresses issues of claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and inventive step assessment. The judgment establishes key legal principles regarding how the skilled person interprets patent claims, evaluates priority claims, and assesses obviousness based on realistic starting points in the prior art.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the Korean plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., for court-provided simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for September 5, 2024, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. The plaintiff, represented by German counsel, had filed the infringement action in German as the procedural language. The court addressed whether the court itself must provide interpretation services or whether the party must arrange and bear the cost of its own interpreter.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerned a patent infringement action brought by KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 221 117. Following an oral hearing on April 16, 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 20% reimbursement of court fees to the plaintiff under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Apple entities (the appellants and defendants in the main infringement proceedings) to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the time limit for filing the respondent's appeal response under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involves Apple's appeal of the Court of First Instance President's order dated June 18, 2024, which rejected Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2263098). The Court of Appeal rejected the acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in acceleration did not outweigh Ona Patents' interest in orderly proceedings.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued a procedural order referring both the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and the plaintiff's auxiliary request for patent amendment to the Central Chamber Paris. The referral was granted because nearly all attacks raised in the counterclaim were already being pursued in an earlier central revocation action filed by Defendant 1, making parallel proceedings before two different panels inefficient. The court rejected the defendants' objections regarding the risk of divergent decisions, language change costs, and the advancement of central proceedings.
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.