technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,511 decisions indexed
Page 46 of 51 · 1,511 total
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This order concerns an application by Carrier Corporation seeking review of a decision by the judge-rapporteur regarding the admissibility of patent amendments in revocation proceedings. BITZER Electronics had filed a revocation action against Carrier Corporation's European patent EP 3 414 708 limited to claim 1, and Carrier Corporation filed a main request and twelve auxiliary requests to amend the patent, some of which related to non-attacked claims. The Court held that a request to amend a patent must refer only to claims that have been challenged, rendering amendments to unchallenged claims inadmissible.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc. brought a claim against Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of European patent EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Local Division in Düsseldorf. The court issued an order on 30 April 2024 concerning an application for provisional measures under Rule 206.1 RoP in conjunction with Rule 211.1 RoP, following oral proceedings held on 26 March 2024. The order addresses several key legal questions, including the presumption of entitlement to be registered as patent proprietor, the interpretation of stated purposes in patent claims, the standard for knowledge of infringement, and the applicability of security for costs in urgent proceedings.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1. Both parties jointly requested a change of the procedural language from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The court approved the request and ordered that the proceedings be conducted in English from the date of the order.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
AIM Sport Development AG appealed a decision of the Local Division Helsinki that dismissed both its infringement action and its application for provisional measures concerning European patent EP 3 295 663, on the ground that the court lacked competence due to an opt-out. The central issue on appeal was whether the two-month appeal period under R.220.1(a) RoP or the fifteen-day period under R.220.1(c) RoP applied. The Court of Appeal held the appeal admissible, finding that the ambiguity in the rules and the incorrect information provided by the Court of First Instance justified applying the longer two-month period, while extending the respondent's time to respond to three months.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities regarding European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei asserts is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. The defendants raised an exhaustion defense, contending that some accused embodiments incorporate Qualcomm chips and that Huawei's August 2020 license agreement with Qualcomm covers its Wi-Fi 6 standard patents. The defendants applied for an order requiring Huawei to produce the Qualcomm license agreement, along with coercive penalties for non-compliance, while Huawei opposed production citing US court restrictions and alternatively sought confidentiality protections.
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA against European Patent EP 3 876 690, owned by Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG, before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant requested a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of its appeal against the rejection of a Preliminary Objection and pending accelerated opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing the appeal was unlikely to succeed and that the request was a delay tactic. The Court set new dates for the interim conference (19 July 2024) and oral hearing (25 September 2024).
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V and Juul Labs International Inc.
1 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) issued on 24. April 2024 concerning EP 3430921 KEYWORDS: Rule 262 RoP request REFERENCE CODE ECLI: not provided APPLICANT Nicoventures Trading Limited, Globe House, 1 Water S
AUDI AG v.Respondent
This order concerns three applications filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH (as defendants in the main infringement action) requesting that the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), provide security for legal costs pursuant to Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The applicants argued that NST, a US company with its administrative domicile outside the EU, posed a real risk that any cost reimbursement order would be difficult or impossible to enforce, given the complexity of US recognition procedures for foreign judgments. The applications sought security of EUR 200,000 each, or alternatively an amount to be determined by the Court, along with a stay of proceedings or extension of the deadline to respond to the claim.
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 1 552 399 B1 filed applications requesting that the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), provide security for legal costs pursuant to Art. 69.4 UPCA and rule 158 RoP. The applicants argued that NST, a US company with its administrative domicile outside the EU, posed a real risk that any cost reimbursement order would be difficult or impossible to enforce. The applications sought EUR 200,000 each in security, alternatively an amount to be determined by the Court, along with a stay of proceedings or extension of the deadline to respond.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in the context of an application for provisional measures. The court addressed the language of proceedings after the Court of Appeal changed the language from German to English just two weeks before the final order was due. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the final order may be issued in German with a certified English translation to avoid unnecessary delay.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This order concerns three applications by the defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) requesting security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US company. The applicants sought security of EUR 200,000 each under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP, arguing that enforcement of any cost order against NST in the United States would be difficult, lengthy, and expensive due to the state-by-state exequatur requirements. The applications were filed in connection with the main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399 B1 relating to integrated circuits and methods for establishing transactions.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf addresses whether Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., a simple licensee and parent company of the patent holder Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., may intervene in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. The court held that a simple licensee has a legal interest in intervening because a successful revocation counterclaim would retroactively nullify the patent, stripping the licensee of its preferential position over non-licensees. Since the Local Chamber decided to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together, the licensee was permitted to intervene in the entire dispute, not just in the revocation counterclaim.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action relating to European Patent EP2792100, owned by Daedalus Prime LLC. The plaintiff sought permission to serve process on the Chinese defendants (Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc.) and the Taiwanese defendant (MediaTek Inc.) via their respective German branch offices under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff argued that the German branches operate with sufficient independence and autonomy to qualify as places of business through which service could validly be effected.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning the language of proceedings in a patent infringement dispute. Curio Bioscience Inc. appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance dated February 26, 2024, which had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2 697 391). The dispute arose in the context of a provisional measures application filed by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience before the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Court of Appeal addressed the application under Article 49(5) of the UPC Agreement regarding the use of the patent language as the language of proceedings.
Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics Sarl v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MANNHEIM pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 15/04/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1. Advanced Bionics AG Laubisrütistrasse 28 8712 Stäfa Swi
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.VitalAire GmbH, Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V, Dinno Santé s.a.i.
This case concerns European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1 and was brought by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against six defendants, including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. The dispute centers on the language of proceedings, with the plaintiffs having chosen German. Defendants 2 and 6 filed an objection under Rule 19.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure, seeking a change to English, arguing that German is only the official language of one defendant and that English would be less burdensome for all parties. The order was issued by Judge Dr. Thom as Rapporteur of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf.
SVF Holdco v.ICPillar LLC
In the case of multiple defendants, if one of the defendants has its residence within the territory of the Local Division seized, Article 33(1)(b) UPCA must be applied, regardless of whether the other defendants are based inside or outside the Contracting Member States or inside or outside the EU. Hence the only requirements to be met are: 1) the multiple defendants have a commercial relationship, 2) the action relates to the same alleged infringement. The requirement of a “commercial relationsh
Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG v.Toyota Motor Europe
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Toyota's request for a decision by default against Neo Wireless's appeal of an order rejecting Neo's preliminary objection to the UPC's jurisdiction. The court held that Neo had timely corrected formal deficiencies and that the 15-day deadline for filing a statement of appeal under R.224.1(b) RoP runs from the date of service of the decision granting leave to appeal, not from the date of the impugned order.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore Sp. z o.o., Autostore System GmbH, Autostore System AT GmbH, Autostore System AB, Autostore System S.L, Autostore System Srl, Autostore AS, Autostore S.A.S.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Ocado Innovation Limited against an order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division granting a member of the public access to the statement of claim in underlying infringement proceedings against multiple Autostore entities. The Court held that the Court of Appeal could validly sit in a composition of three legally qualified judges under Article 9(1) UPCA when only non-technical issues were in dispute. It further held that requests for public access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP require a balancing of the public interest against the interests protected under Article 45 UPCA, and that access could be granted even where proceedings had ended by settlement.
Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Shamrock Mobile GmbH v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal clarifies the date of service of the appeal documents in proceedings between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and several Xiaomi entities regarding EP 3 611 989. Xiaomi requested confirmation that service of the appeal occurred on April 3, 2024, with the response deadline expiring on April 18, 2024, or alternatively an extension of the response deadline. The order addresses the application of Rules 270 to 279 of the Rules of Procedure regarding service in appeal proceedings.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, issued in proceedings for provisional measures. The applicant Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought interim relief against the respondents Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH. The order sets out key legal principles regarding patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC, the timing of filing provisional measure requests, the treatment of late submissions, cost decisions in interim proceedings, and the requirement for security in case of revocation of provisional measures.
AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This case concerns an application by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (PMA) to access an expert report generated following ex parte evidence preservation and inspection orders against AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.a. The inspection orders, granted in September 2023 in connection with alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2726230, were executed in October 2023, but the resulting expert reports were kept in sealed envelopes. PMA sought access to the reports to evaluate whether to commence proceedings on the merits, arguing that confidentiality obligations prevented its representatives from disclosing the findings.
Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding a Rule 9.3 RoP extension request in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 669 828. The defendants requested a three-week extension of the deadline to file their Statement of Defence, citing the recent change of language of proceedings from German to English. The court rejected the extension request, finding that the defendants failed to substantiate why the one-month period between the language change and the filing deadline was insufficient.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
This order was issued by the judge-rapporteur in a revocation action concerning European patent No. EP 3 414 708. The order addressed three procedural issues: the validity of the patent's priority claim, the allowable form of amendments, and late-filed attacks on validity. The judge-rapporteur ruled that the priority claim validity issue should remain part of the proceedings, deferred amendment-related issues to the oral hearing, excluded novelty attacks based on MB5 and MB6, but admitted sufficiency attacks targeting the amended version of the patent.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
This order concerns a revocation action brought by BITZER Electronics A/S against European patent EP 3 414 708 held by Carrier Corporation. The judge-rapporteur addressed procedural and substantive issues arising from the interim conference, including the validity of the priority claim, the admissibility of certain patent amendments, and late-filed attacks on novelty and sufficiency. The ruling permitted the priority challenge to proceed, excluded late-filed novelty attacks based on documents MB5 and MB6, allowed sufficiency attacks targeting the amended patent, and deferred questions regarding the admissibility of certain amendments and the twelfth auxiliary request to the oral hearing.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns a request by FUJIFILM Corporation to extend the time period for filing its reply to the defendants' Statement of defence, Counterclaims for revocation, and application to amend European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. The defendants had filed confidential information related to alleged private prior use and business figures, and access was initially restricted to the claimant's representatives. The court granted the extension until 28 May 2024, finding that the delayed and restricted access to confidential information constituted an exceptional case justifying the extension.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 1 838 002, with Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited as the plaintiff alleging patent infringement against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation of the patent. The court addressed the procedural question under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court regarding whether the infringement action and revocation counterclaims should be heard together or separated. Both parties agreed that the action and counterclaims should be heard together before the same panel, and the court ordered that they be jointly heard before the Local Chamber Munich.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This appeal concerned five revocation actions brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International, Inc. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, relating to five European patents. The statements for revocation incorrectly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' rather than 'Juul Labs International, Inc.' The Court of Appeal addressed whether the claimant could rectify this naming error and considered the issue of costs under Rule 242.1 RoP. The Court held that rectification could be granted where it was clear from the circumstances that the claimant intended the action against the defendant, and that no order for costs would be issued at the appeal stage since the decision was not a final order concluding the action.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation , Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement dispute involving standard-essential patents (SEPs) for 3G and 4G standards. The plaintiff (Panasonic) alleges infringement of its patent, while the defendants (including OPPO) counter that Panasonic's licensing demands during prior negotiations were not FRAND. Both parties requested the court to order production of evidence, including license agreements, to determine what constitutes FRAND terms in this case.
Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany u.a. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE regarding European Patent EP1612910. The defendants requested that certain information in their Rejoinder, particularly projected sales figures for a potential twelve-month enforcement period, be declared confidential trade secrets with access restricted to a maximum of three named reliable persons. The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing the defendants were attempting to delay proceedings. The Local Chamber Hamburg issued a final procedural order addressing the confidentiality and access restrictions under Rule 262A.
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.