technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 52 of 58 · 1,714 total
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This procedural order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Local Division Milan, in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848 owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Indian defendant Bhagat Textile Engineers. The order addressed the conduct of an interim conference previously scheduled for May 27, 2024, balancing the principle of transparency and public access to judicial proceedings against the parties' right to protection of confidential information. The court ordered that the parties file summaries of points to be discussed, that the conference be open to the public unless confidential matters arose, and that the proceedings be recorded.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, filed an infringement action on November 30, 2023, against fifteen HP-related entities across Europe, alleging infringement relating to HEVC-capable computers. The order addresses the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the claims (Klagebeschränkung) under Rule 263.1 and .3 of the Rules of Procedure.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Respondent
This case concerns three interlocutory applications filed by the defendants (UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) in proceedings brought by Ballinno B.V. regarding European Patent EP1944067. The defendants sought an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs of at least €200,000, an adjustment of the value in dispute to €2,000,000, and the allocation of a technically qualified judge to the panel. The defendants argued that Ballinno, a Dutch company with unpaid issued capital of EUR 1 and no known assets other than the patent in suit, was unlikely to be able to reimburse litigation costs.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd. Et al.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3883277, which relates to electronic shelf labels for displaying price information in retail environments. The appellant, VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA), challenged a first-instance order from the Local Chamber Munich dated December 20, 2023, in proceedings against multiple Hanshow entities. The key legal principle established was that patent claim features must always be interpreted in the light of the entire claim.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3883277, which relates to electronic shelf labels for displaying information such as prices in retail environments. The appellant, VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA), challenged an order from the Local Chamber Munich dated December 20, 2023, in proceedings involving the respondents Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd and its German, French, and Dutch subsidiaries. The appeal concerned the interpretation of patent claims, the scope of protection, and alleged infringement in the context of an application for provisional measures.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
The defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 filed a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to a standstill agreement requiring 90 days' notice before filing lawsuits. The claimants (respondents to the preliminary objection) countered that the standstill agreement did not affect the court's jurisdiction and that they had complied with the notice period. The Court of First Instance rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the violation of a standstill agreement does not constitute grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. v.Respondent
This order concerns a nullity action regarding EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance, with German as the language of proceedings. The claimants, CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. (Dutch companies), requested simultaneous interpretation into Dutch, alternatively English, for both the interim hearing on May 29, 2024 and the oral hearing on August 23, 2024. The claimants argued that their managing directors, the responsible personnel, and their authorized representative Dr. Wim Maas do not speak German, and that as medium-sized enterprises they cannot be expected to provide multilingual case management.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163. The court addressed the defendants' requests to modify a provisional confidentiality order governing the production of documents. The court granted most modifications, including expanding the definition of legal representatives, increasing the number of reliable persons from one to three, removing the return/destruction obligation, adjusting the penalty provision to require culpability, and cleaning up duplicated obligations.
TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH v.Respondent
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_498/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in the main proceedings related to European Patent 3 057 321 delivered on 09/05/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 22/12/2023 TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated
This case concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 B1 (integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions). Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded with respect to certain time periods, embodiments, and damages claims. Texas Instruments sought a declaration that the court lacks international jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation, and alternatively requested splitting off proceedings related to UK territory acts.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This order concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by the Applicants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded, while Texas Instruments challenged the court's jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation. The Local Division in Munich issued the order on 8 May 2024 addressing these preliminary objections and requests pursuant to rules 19 and 361 of the Rules of Procedure.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Huawei Technologies for a production order against itself and a confidentiality order in proceedings alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei claims is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought to introduce into the proceedings a license agreement it concluded with Amazon on March 5, 2024, regarding its Wi-Fi patent portfolio, arguing that court-ordered confidentiality protection was necessary. The defendants, NETGEAR entities, were defending in part on the basis of an antitrust compulsory license (FRAND) defense. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann as rapporteur of the Munich Local Chamber.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This order concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 (integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions). Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded, while Texas Instruments sought a declaration that the court lacks international jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation. The Local Division in Munich issued the order on 8 May 2024 addressing these preliminary objections and rule 361 RoP requests.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_241/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 06/05/2024 Nota: Richiesta ai sensi del R. 262A R.o.P. da parte dei ricorrenti di un ordine di riservatezza relativo alle informazioni finanziarie fornite a s
UPC Decision UPC-001501 v.Respondent
This order concerns the severance of proceedings under Rule 303.2 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities and other defendants concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315. The Local Chamber Mannheim ordered the separation of the proceedings against Defendants 1, 2, 7, and 8 (located in China and Hong Kong) from the main proceedings, because service on these defendants must be effected abroad under the Hague Service Convention and will take considerable time. The court found severance appropriate since the representatives of the other defendants confirmed they were not mandated by the China/Hong Kong defendants, and prior attempts to treat service on Defendant 3 as effective for all defendants had been rejected.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Photon Wave Co.,Ltd., Laser Components SAS
L’intervenant ne peut développer des prétentions contraires à la partie qu’il soutient et ne peut développer de manière autonome des demandes et selon des modalités procédurales distinctes de celles offertes à la partie qu’elle soutient. Dès lors, l’intervenant n’ayant pas déposé de demande reconventionnelle en nullité dans le délai imparti à la personne qu’il soutient, ne peut pas prétendre à une extension des délais pour déposer une demande autonome. Même si le brevet européen en litige a été
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
This order concerns a preliminary objection lodged by Mala Technologies Ltd. in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH regarding European Patent EP 2 044 709 B1. Mala Technologies sought to have the court decline jurisdiction and reject the revocation action as inadmissible, or alternatively to stay proceedings pending a decision of the German Federal Court of Justice in parallel German revocation appeal proceedings. Nokia opposed the preliminary objection and the requests for a stay. The Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Paris Seat), presided over by judge-rapporteur Maximilian Haedicke, rejected the preliminary objection in its order of 2 May 2024.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted suspensive effect to an appeal filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against an order of the Local Division Milan that revoked provisional measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises, and ordered the restitution of gathered evidence to the respondents. The Court held that enforcement of the restitution order pending the appeal would render the appeal largely ineffective, as the return of evidence would be difficult to reverse if the appeal succeeded.
Keestrack N.V. v.Respondent
Keestrack N.V., the claimant and patent holder of EP3713672, filed a request to withdraw its patent infringement action against Geha Laverman B.V. before the Local Division The Hague, with the defendant's consent. The defendant experienced technical difficulties with the digital case management system (CMS) that delayed its formal response, though it had submitted its consent by email on the original deadline. The court accepted the late CMS filing as timely given the email submission and granted the withdrawal request.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.
Daedalus Prime LLC sought a panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order denying its request for an extension of time to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings concerning EP 2792100. The Court of Appeal confirmed the denial, holding that Daedalus could and should have sought external advice and comprehensively set out its arguments before lodging the Statement of claim, and that CMS issues were insufficient to justify an extension.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
This order concerns two generic applications (App_19959/2024 and App_23242/2024) lodged in revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed a subsequent application to amend the patent after the closing of the written procedure, proposing one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The claimant Meril Italy srl submitted comments leaving the admission decision to the Court's discretion while requesting additional time to file an additional defence if the amendment was admitted. The presiding judge addressed the Court's discretionary powers under Rule 30(2) RoP regarding the admission of subsequent requests to amend a patent after the written procedure has closed.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
This order was issued by the Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Paris Seat) in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, filed a subsequent application to amend the patent after a previous amendment application had been rejected and after the closing of the written procedure. The Court recognized its discretionary authority to admit such a subsequent amendment request, provided that the claimant's right to defence was preserved through the possibility of filing an additional defence if the amendment was admitted.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation, plaintiff in a standard-essential patent infringement action concerning EP 3 096 315, sought a court production order directed against itself to compel the disclosure of two specific license agreements. The plaintiff argued that confidentiality clauses in those agreements prevented voluntary production, and that its license partners had either failed to respond or refused consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order providing fundamental guidance on the requirements for production orders in standard-essential patent disputes, following the Reporting Judge's prior directions of March 19, 2024 and the plaintiff's responsive statement of April 15, 2024.
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
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.