technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 44 of 58 · 1,714 total
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich concerning the reimbursement of costs following the rejection of an application for interim measures. The applicant SES-imagotag SA was ordered to bear the costs of the respondents (four Hanshow group companies) up to a cap of €200,000. The court assessed the claimed costs through a plausibility check, establishing that detailed hour-by-hour breakdowns are not strictly required and that representation by a team of three lawyers and two patent attorneys is appropriate for proceedings against four group-affiliated companies.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_395/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 11/10/2024 APPLICANTS 1) Abbott Logistics B.V. Postbus 365 8000AJ Zwolle – NL Represented by Christian Dekoninck 2) 3) Abbott Diagnostics GmbH Max-Planck-Ring 2 65205 Wies
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent
This case concerns a panel review of a confidentiality order in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to extend access to confidential information to two US-based attorneys and to future confidential submissions, arguing that excluding them violated its fundamental judicial rights. The Panel rejected the application to dismiss the procedural orders, upheld the restriction on access by the US attorneys, and granted the Defendants' request to replace the redacted version of the Statement of Defence, while granting leave to appeal.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
This is a default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) issued by the Local Chamber Munich in a patent infringement action under Article 37 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff, i-mop GmbH, is the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 760 094 B1, which protects a hand-guided floor processing device with a specific joint configuration allowing the floor part to be rotated at least ±45° around a vertical axis. The defendant, ARCORA International GmbH, is a German-domiciled company against whom the infringement claim was directed. The judgment was rendered by a panel consisting of Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß (Rapporteur), legally qualified Judge Dr. Daniel Voß, and legally qualified Judge Mojca Mlakar.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court ruled on a cost determination request concerning appeal costs. The respondents (Hanshow entities) had filed their cost determination request on June 18, 2024, more than one month after the appeal was rejected on May 13, 2024, thereby missing the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP. The court held that the retroactive extension of the deadline under Rule 9.3(a) RoP was inadmissible, as Rule 320 RoP on restitutio in integrum operates as lex specialis and displaces the general extension rule in this context.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1, with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. as plaintiff suing two related defendants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, for patent infringement. The court addressed procedural questions regarding the treatment of multiple defendants in a single action, the filing of counterclaims for patent revocation by individual defendants, and whether security for costs should be ordered. The decision was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on October 10, 2024.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 1793917 before the Local Division in Düsseldorf, the Defendant (Aarke AB) requested an adjournment of the oral hearing pending the Court of Appeal's decision on its dismissed request for security for costs. The Court dismissed the request for adjournment, holding that since an order concerning security for costs is not listed in Art. 74(3) UPCA, there is no requirement to await a final order of the Court of Appeal before rendering its own decision on the merits.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. as the plaintiff and expert e-Commerce GmbH as one of the defendants. The decision addresses procedural questions regarding the treatment of multiple defendants in a single action, the filing of counterclaims for patent revocation by individual defendants, and the question of whether security for costs should be ordered. The court held that proceedings against multiple defendants remain formally independent, that an isolated counterclaim for revocation by individual defendants is permissible, and that no security requirement was imposed in this case.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
EOFlow appealed an order of the Central Division Milan that denied its request to join two parallel provisional measures proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327. EOFlow additionally requested the Court of Appeal to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines so that a decision could be issued before the scheduled oral hearings in the first instance. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that EOFlow had unnecessarily delayed filing its appeal and had not sufficiently taken into account the respondent's right to file a response.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This order concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding European Patent EP 2 043 492. Dyson Technology Limited, the respondent, requested that several grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja concerning validity attacks be disregarded as they were allegedly not properly specified in the Statement of Appeal. SharkNinja opposed the request, arguing that the grounds were indeed contained in the Statement of Appeal through references to earlier submissions and specific paragraphs. The text of the order is truncated and does not include the final ruling.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that granted Microsoft Corporation's request for security for costs and declared Suinno's own request for security inadmissible. The Court of Appeal held the request for discretionary review inadmissible because Suinno had not first requested the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal, as required under Rule 220.2 RoP before a discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP can be pursued.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
1. The procedural efficiency must yield to the principle of the fair trial. Therefore, a request for extension of a time period must be denied where the opposing party has already met the correspondent shorter, ordinary time period.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This is a preliminary order in an infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP3977921 B1. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and both parties submitted various procedural applications including requests for communication of information, leave to change claims, dismissal of certain revocation grounds, and security for legal costs. The Court addressed procedural deadlines for further written submissions and preparation of the oral hearing, discussed the allocation of a technically qualified judge, and considered the claimant's application for leave to amend its prayer for relief.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This appeal concerned the determination of which party is the prevailing party under Article 69(1) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court following the dismissal of a claim after the defendant submitted an injunction and commitment declaration. The dispute involved European Patent EP 3 763 331 relating to a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses. The Court of Appeal held that when a defendant commits to comply with the plaintiff's requests after proceedings have been initiated, the plaintiff is generally considered the prevailing party, as the declaration itself implies that the plaintiff's requests have been fulfilled.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, , TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 863 637. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Munich) admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file through the Claimant's representatives, subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on an application by Samsung under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in a patent infringement action brought by US-based Headwater Research LLC concerning EP 2 391 947. The Court found that Headwater, a non-practicing entity with no assets other than patents used in worldwide litigation, failed to substantively challenge the Defendants' concerns about cost recoverability. The Court ordered Headwater to deposit €100,000 as security for costs within three weeks.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.,, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application by Access Advance LLC, administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 863 637. The court admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.,
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 645 714 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a legal interest and that allowing it would circumvent a non-disclosure agreement and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich admitted the intervention in support of the Claimant, subject to strict confidentiality restrictions limiting Access Advance's access to certain sensitive information.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.,
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of an HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a sufficient legal interest and that allowing intervention would circumvent an NDA and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich granted the application to intervene, subject to strict confidentiality protections and procedural conditions.
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 01/10/2024 Order no. ORD_51903/2024 Applicant EOFLOW CO LTD (intervener) defendants 1) Insulet Corporation (applicant in the main proceeding)
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
1 1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_380/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/10/2024 In the matter INSULET CORPORATION 100 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720, USA represented by its CEO Jim Holl
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/10/2024 Order no. ORD_51903/2024 Applicant EOFLOW CO LTD (intervener) defendants 1) Insulet Corporation (applicant in the main proceeding)
Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns an application for discretionary review by the Court of Appeal under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The dispute involves three infringement proceedings between Xiaomi entities (as defendants) and Panasonic Holdings Corporation (as plaintiff) concerning European Patents EP 3096315, EP 2568724, and EP 2207270 before the Local Division Mannheim. The contested issue relates to the expiration and extension of deadlines under Rule 29(d) RoP for the plaintiff's reply to the counterclaim for revocation, rejoinder to the reply to the statement of defense, and response to a request to amend the patent, particularly in light of the plaintiff's submission of a partially redacted reply and subsequent confidentiality requests regarding third-party license agreements.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Volkswagen AG's request for rectification of a prior order that had directed Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in three related proceedings. Volkswagen sought to have the order rectified to include a notification under R.158.4 RoP that failure to provide security could result in a decision by default under R.355 RoP. The Court of Appeal declined rectification but issued a separate order providing the required notification to NST.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning notification pursuant to Rule 158.4 RoP in proceedings involving three European patents. Audi AG had requested rectification of a prior order that required NST to provide security for costs, seeking inclusion of a notification that failure to provide security could result in a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The Court declined to rectify the original order but provided the notification separately to NST.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent No. EP 3 466 498 B1 in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The defendants sought leave to file further written submissions by October 28, 2024, in response to a Court of Appeal order dated September 25, 2024. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected the application, finding that the appellate order provided no basis for permitting additional pleadings in the main proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in a main infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, applied for an order requiring the respondent Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to provide security for legal costs of at least EUR 800,000 (alternatively EUR 600,000), citing the respondent's alleged insolvency risk and lack of substantial assets. The respondent opposed the application and requested reciprocal security if any security order were granted. The Court analyzed the legal basis under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158(1) RoP, confirming its discretion to order security for costs when the respondent's financial position raises a legitimate concern that a costs order may not be recoverable or enforceable.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against three Optoma entities concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the defendants' deadline to respond and file any counterclaim for invalidity expired, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement. The defendants consented to the withdrawal and the agreed cost arrangements. The court permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a partial refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP3024163. The defendants filed a stay application based on a parallel UK High Court action seeking determination of FRAND license terms. The presiding judge referred the stay application to the full panel for decision, proposing that the matter be addressed during or after already scheduled oral hearings concerning related patents.
Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns a nullity counterclaim filed by Vibrantz GmbH against Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG, the registered patent holder of European Patent No. 3 215 288, while Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG is the substantive patent owner. Heraeus Precious Metals argued the counterclaim should have been directed against the substantive owner and was therefore manifestly hopeless or inadmissible. The Local Division Munich rejected these applications, holding that under Rule 25.1 in conjunction with Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure, a nullity counterclaim may validly be directed against the registered patent holder under Rule 8.6.
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.