technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 44 of 51 · 1,511 total
Umedwings Netherlands B.V., Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, applied for provisional measures including a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The defendants did not oppose the facts presented. The Court of First Instance denied the application, holding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid in proceedings on the merits due to added matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed.
Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 18/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG Maximilianstr
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 18/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Google Ireland Ltd Gordon House, Barrow Street 4
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Respondent
The plaintiff, an Austrian machine and plant engineering company, sought permission to serve its infringement complaint on a Turkish defendant at the defendant's trade fair stand at the PRS Europe fair in Amsterdam on June 19/20, 2024. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, service may be effected at any location within contracting member states where a company has a permanent or temporary business establishment, and that a trade fair stand qualifies as such when, as is typically the case, deliveries are also promoted there. The court ordered service at the specified trade fair address and directed the plaintiff to initially bear the costs of such service.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi had appealed a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought permission to file additional pleadings to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding Rules 35 and 36 RoP applicable mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings and that Audi's request was sufficiently reasoned.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for information contained in a written submission filed outside the regular deadline regime on May 24, 2024. The plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited) left the decision to the court's discretion but argued that the information may not be confidential since Tesla's sales prices and vehicle production figures are publicly available. The Local Chamber Munich granted the confidentiality protection, finding it credible that the requested information is not publicly accessible.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent 1 838 002. The defendants (Tesla entities) had filed a written submission outside the regular deadline regime and sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the applicable procedural rules for certain commercially sensitive information contained therein. The court granted the confidentiality protection, finding it credible that the requested information was not publicly accessible, and imposed restrictions on the plaintiff's internal access to the designated information.
Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns a request by the defendants (Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited) for confidential treatment of two exhibits (Confidential Exhibit SA-1 and Confidential Exhibit SA-9) filed in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. The claimant (Syngenta Limited) did not formally object to the confidentiality request and provided a list of employees within its group who would have access to the confidential information. The Presiding Judge granted the application, ordering that the information be treated as strictly confidential and not used or disclosed outside the proceedings.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural matters in three parallel patent infringement proceedings before the Local Chamber Mannheim involving European Patent EP 2 568 724 and related patents. The defendants, including multiple Xiaomi entities and other companies, requested an extension of deadlines for their reply submissions, rejoinder to the counterclaim for revocation, and response to the patent amendment request until August 6, 2024. The order also addresses ongoing issues regarding the confidentiality regime, particularly the number of persons authorized to access confidential information on the defendants' side, following the plaintiff's filing of redacted replies and supplementary submissions concerning FRAND-related comparison licenses.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH pursuant to Rule 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) Issued on 12/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Samsung Electronics GmbH Am Kronberger Hang 6, 65824
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Respondent
This is a procedural order in preliminary measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 152 073. The defendants requested postponement of the scheduled oral hearing from 11 July 2024 to 12 July 2024 due to a conflicting hearing at the Düsseldorf Regional Court. After the claimant confirmed its availability for 12 July 2024, the court granted the request and rescheduled the hearing.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of corporate documents. The Defendants sought to compel the Plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited) to disclose four Board of Directors resolutions from entities within the Avago corporate group relating to the authorization of the patent assignment and the granting of powers of attorney. The Defendants raised doubts about the validity of the powers of attorney (Anlagen K29 and K30) and whether the underlying corporate authorizations had been properly granted.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers regarding European patent EP2145848. The dispute originated from an order for preservation of evidence obtained ex parte following Bhagat's exhibition at the ITMA fair in Milan in June 2023. The defendant denied any knowledge of the patent, denied having commercialized infringing products in the patent-protected territory, and reiterated its commitment not to enter the patent-covered market, while the parties engaged in advanced settlement negotiations. The order addresses procedural matters including the correction of the defendant's name in the introductory act and the evaluation of litigation costs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of corporate documents from the plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited). The defendants sought the disclosure of Board of Directors resolutions of Avago group entities referenced in the power of attorney documents (Annexes K29 and K30), arguing doubts existed regarding the validity of the powers of attorney and the authorization for the transfer of the patent-in-suit. The plaintiff opposed the request, contending that the defendants' concerns had shifted from the admissibility of self-dealing transactions to internal corporate decision-making, and that there were no doubts that such decision-making had occurred.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent
Daedalus Prime LLC applied to withdraw its appeal against two of five respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, while continuing the appeal against the remaining three respondents. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the two respondents had a legitimate interest in the appeal being decided because they had been served with the Statement of claim, had responded to the appeal, and would be directly or indirectly affected by the outcome regarding service on affiliated companies.
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Toyota Motor Europe
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld a decision that an opt-out from UPC jurisdiction was invalid because it was not lodged by all proprietors of all national parts of the European patent. Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (Neo) had argued that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for European patent EP 3876490 was valid, but the Court ruled that Article 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge the opt-out application. The appeal was rejected, and the revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe was allowed to proceed before the UPC.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Respondent
Nera Innovations Ltd. sought partial withdrawal of its appeal against two of four Xiaomi respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH), while continuing the appeal against Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. The appeal concerned a first-instance order from the Local Chamber Hamburg that had rejected Nera's requests to serve the complaint on two defendants via Xiaomi Germany. The Court of Appeal considered whether the partial withdrawal should be permitted, taking into account whether the statement of appeal grounds had already been served on the affected respondents and whether they had a legitimate interest in a decision being rendered in relation to them.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute between Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (plaintiff) and Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE (defendants). The defendants filed a further request under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to produce internal corporate Board of Directors resolutions relating to the authorization of powers of attorney and the transfer of the patent-in-suit. The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing the defendants were improperly shifting focus from the admissibility of self-dealing transactions to internal corporate decision-making. The text of the order is incomplete and does not contain the final ruling.
Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Tech v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163 before the Local Chamber Munich. The defendants include Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., various Xiaomi Technology subsidiaries across Europe, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, and Shamrock Mobile GmbH. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann as rapporteur, addressing preliminary procedural requests in the infringement proceedings.
Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1 relating to a method and system for detecting offside situations, sought a preliminary injunction against UEFA and Kinexon entities in connection with the 'Connected Ball Technology' used at the UEFA European Football Championship 2024. The court denied the application, finding that the claimant had waited almost three months after learning of the alleged infringement without taking significant steps to investigate or obtain supporting documents, thereby failing to demonstrate the urgency required for a preliminary injunction.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 30/05/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Samsung Electronics GmbH Am Kronberger Hang 6,
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 28 May 2024, addresses the principles governing stays of revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Court held that, as a general principle, the UPC will not stay revocation proceedings, and that the mere existence of parallel EPO opposition proceedings or even an EPO decision to accelerate those proceedings is insufficient to justify a stay. An exception may apply only when a rapid decision from the EPO may be expected, with the Court exercising discretionary power based on a balance of the parties' interests.
NEC Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural deadlines for filing Statements of Defense in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant, NEC Corporation, sought to shorten the deadline for Defendants 3), 4), and 6) to May 23, 2024, arguing they belonged to the same group as Defendant 1) and shared a coordinated defense. The Defendants requested an extension to July 8, 2024, citing the Claimant's failure to upload the correct HEVC standard annexes with the Statement of Claim. The Court extended the deadline for Defendants 1), 3), 4), and 6) to July 8, 2024, rejecting the Claimant's requests.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Respondent
This order of the Court of Appeal concerned Texas Instruments' request for expedition of an appeal against the Court of First Instance's denial of their application for security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA in underlying infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 552 669. Texas Instruments argued that expedition was needed because they continued to incur legal costs defending the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation without adequate security from the claimant, NST. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, finding it insufficiently substantiated and noting that Texas Instruments had not demonstrated a particular interest in shortening the 15-day period for NST to lodge its Statement of response.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
Audi AG filed an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance Local Division Munich that denied Audi's application requesting Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide adequate security for legal costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Concurrently with its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal, Audi requested the Court of Appeal to expedite the appeal proceedings and shorten deadlines. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that Audi had not explained any particular interest in shortening the respondent's 15-day period for filing a Statement of response, and that the request regarding further proceedings was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Respondent
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its Statement of appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal and shortening of deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP, citing increasing legal costs. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application for security for costs against Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
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.