technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 47 of 58 · 1,714 total
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an applicant's request for review of the Registrar's decision rejecting his application for registration in the list of representatives before the UPC. The applicant claimed to meet the qualification requirements under Article 48(2) of the UPC Agreement, including passing the European qualifying examination and the German patent attorney examination, and argued that his 'Munich Year' training (1997-1998) was equivalent to the 'Law for Patent Attorneys' course at Hagen distance university referenced in Rule 12.1(a)(ii) EPLC Rules. The Registrar had rejected the application, finding that only courses and certificates explicitly listed in Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules could be recognized as qualifying credentials.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, addressing the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the Defendants' (Magna entities) request to classify certain information contained in their Objection and related exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited group of the Applicant's (Valeo Electrification) representatives. The court rejected Valeo's objection that the same information had already been publicly disclosed in Stuttgart Regional Court proceedings in 2023, finding that the information in question was different.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal by several Apple entities against an order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) dated June 18, 2024, which rejected a request to change the language of proceedings to the language in which European Patent EP 2 263 098 was granted. The order addresses a Rule 36 application filed by the respondent Ona Patents SL, seeking to disregard the appellants' reply filed on August 15, 2024, or alternatively to be granted an extension to respond. The court reasoned that under Rule 239.2 RoP, the written procedure in appeal proceedings is concluded when the judge summons the parties to oral hearing, and any Rule 36 request for further submissions must be filed before that date.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation filed an application for discretionary review with the Court of Appeal challenging an order of the Court of First Instance (Central Division Paris) dated 2 July 2024, which had rejected Microsoft's request to declare Suinno's patent infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173 as manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP. The Court of Appeal addressed whether such an order denying a Rule 361 request is admissible for appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP, and whether it qualifies as a case management order requiring issuance by a panel. The standing judge issued the order addressing these procedural questions.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The Aylo companies (AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYLO Freesites Ltd) sought review of a Local Division Mannheim order dated July 22, 2024, which had rejected their request to exclude three in-house counsel of the Dish and Sling companies from a confidentiality ring established under Rule 262A RoP. The Local Division found that the three US-based in-house counsel, who are patent attorneys admitted before the USPTO, were sufficiently reliable to be granted access to confidential information. The Aylo companies requested the Court of Appeal to admit the appeal against this order.
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 21/08/2024 DEMANDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Harris County, TX, 77389, USA - 77389 - Harris County - US Rep
Ballinno B.V. v.Respondent
Ballinno B.V. requested that the Central Division stay revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1 pending the outcome of its appeal against the denial of its provisional measures application by the Local Division Hamburg. The court denied the request, holding that an appeal against the denial of provisional measures does not generally justify a stay of revocation proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP, and that the proceedings must be conducted to allow the final oral hearing at first instance within one year.
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, INTERLUX, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action regarding EP3769722. The Defendants (Meril entities and others) requested a stay of proceedings pending an EPO opposition decision, while the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) opposed the stay. The Court dismissed the request, holding that Rule 118.2(b) RoP applies only during oral procedure, a rapid EPO decision could not be expected, and the UPC could itself decide validity given the pending counterclaims for revocation.
SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, SORMEDICA, UAB, MERIL GMBH, INTERLUX, UAB v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the Defendants (Meril Life Sciences and related entities) for the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) to provide security for legal costs in an infringement action concerning EP3769722. The Defendants argued that security was warranted because the Claimant is based in the United States, outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order potentially difficult. The court dismissed the application, holding that the Claimant's location outside the EU and the lack of experience enforcing UPC orders in the US are not sufficient grounds for ordering security, and that the balance of interests favored the Claimant.
Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect under R.223 RoP in a patent dispute concerning EP 2 713 879. The appellants (Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) appealed a preliminary injunction order issued by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court of Appeal found the first instance order manifestly erroneous insofar as it extended to Ireland, since Ireland had signed but not ratified the UPCA and was therefore not a Contracting Member State.
Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
1 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 16 August 2024 APPLICANT IN PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS: TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON represented by Mr. Wim Maas Eelco Bergsma Manuel Durães Rocha DEFENDANTS IN PRELIM
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
1 Nordic-Baltic - regional division UPC_CFI_8/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/08/2024 APPLICANT/CLAMIMANT 1) Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Applicant) - One Edwards Way - 92614 - Irvine, California - US Represented b
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order issued by the Local Chamber in Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP4108782, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen, Inc. filed requests under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking the production of various documents from the plaintiffs, including a 2019 license agreement between Harvard and ReadCoor, several emails disclosed in parallel US discovery proceedings, and documents referenced in a US hearing before Judge Kennelly. The order addresses the procedural framework for these document production requests in connection with the parallel US litigation.
TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v.NEC Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 057 321. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) (TCL entities) filed an amended application for protection of confidential information regarding their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, after reaching an agreement with the Claimant on the terms of a confidentiality club. The Court granted the application, classifying specified information and annexes as confidential and restricting access to named representatives and their teams.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v.NEC Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 645 714. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) sought protection of confidential information in their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, and after the parties reached an understanding on the applicable confidentiality club, the court granted the amended application. The court classified specific information as confidential, restricted access to designated representatives and their teams, and imposed a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 for any culpable breach of the confidentiality obligations.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Respondent
The Claimant, Network System Technologies LLC, sued four Defendants for patent infringement regarding European patent EP 1 552 669. By letter dated 1 July 2024, the Claimant declared a partial withdrawal of the action against Defendants 1 and 2 (Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) following a settlement. The Local Division Munich held that Rule 265 RoP applies to partial subjective withdrawals of action, permitted the withdrawal with the consent of Defendants 1 and 2, and ordered that each party bear its own costs as agreed.
DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o., a member of the public, for access to the pleadings and evidence in an ongoing patent infringement case under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying infringement action was brought by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717, which relates to a color and light mixing collecting optic for outdoor LED variable traffic signs. The order establishes the legal framework for balancing public access interests against the protection of confidential information, personal data, and the integrity of the proceedings.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addressed preliminary issues in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 863 637. The court dealt with the Defendants' request to extend the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence, which was based on the Claimant's erroneous submission of the AVC standard as Exhibit BP 6 instead of the intended HEVC standard. The order also addressed questions regarding the authority of representatives acting before the court and the proper filing of requests.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS
Procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by AGFA NV against nine Gucci group entities concerning European Patent EP3388490. The defendants jointly sought to protect as trade secrets certain information contained in their Statement of Defence and Rejoinder relating to the Gucci group's internal organization, supply chain, and sales data. The Hamburg Local Division granted the application, classifying the identified information as confidential under R. 262A RoP and restricting its use outside the present proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited , Dexcom Inc.
Procedural order concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendants requested that certain internal information contained in their Rejoinder be treated as strictly confidential, and the Local Division Munich granted the request, restricting access to the Claimant's named representatives and three named employees, with provisions for confidentiality obligations and penalty payments for breaches.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH filed a revocation action against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. seeking to revoke European Patent No. EP 3065184 relating to trench processes for backside contact solar cells. Before the Statement for Revocation was served on the Defendant, the Claimant withdrew the claim and requested partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid.
Amgen AB, Amgen s.r.l., Amgen GmbH, Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O., Amgen N.V. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a procedural question concerning the effective date of service of the Appellant's Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings related to EP 3167888. The Appellant had uploaded the Statement of grounds to the Respondents' representative's German special electronic lawyer's mailbox (beA) on 27 July 2024, while the Court notified the Respondents via the Case Management System (CMS) on 29 July 2024. The Court held that under Rule 278.1 and 2 RoP, written pleadings are served by the Registry through the electronic CMS, and prior inter-party communication via another electronic system such as beA does not constitute effective service. The Court ordered that service of the Statement of grounds of appeal was effected on 29 July 2024.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 697 391 B1. The Defendant sought a confidentiality order restricting access to unredacted versions of its statement of defence and confidential exhibits, while the Claimant sought to extend access to its legal representatives and three named employees. The Court granted access to the Claimant's named representatives and their teams, along with three employees, finding that the Defendant had not objected to the extension and had not provided reasons to limit access further.
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.
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.