technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 54 of 58 · 1,714 total
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This case concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. EP3056563, owned by Healios K.K., Riken, and Osaka University, with Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine as the claimant. Following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024 via video conference, the judge-rapporteur issued procedural decisions on the admissibility of evidence and the value of the dispute. The court admitted a second declaration (D18) into the proceedings subject to conditions, and set the value of the dispute at 4,000,000 EUR for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs.
Laser Components SAS v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance procédurale du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 13/03/2024 DEMANDEUR: Laser Components SAS 45B Route des Gardes 92190 Meudon - FR Representé par Helge von Hirschhausen DEFENDEUR: Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd 6
UPC Decision UPC-001562 v.Respondent
UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_5/2024 PR_APL_189/2024 ORDER of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 March 2024 pursuant to Rule 229.5 RoP HAEDNOTE Under Rule 220.2 RoP an appeal from an order without leave is inadmissible from the outset and, as
UPC Decision UPC-001561 v.Respondent
UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_5/2024 PR_APL_189/2024 ORDER of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 March 2024 pursuant to Rule 229.5 RoP HAEDNOTE Under Rule 220.2 RoP an appeal from an order without leave is inadmissible from the outset and, as
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315 before the Local Chamber Munich. Following an oral hearing on January 30, 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to confirm the settlement. The defendant consented to the settlement and both parties jointly requested its confirmation, confidentiality of its details, and noted that costs were already settled within the agreement.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This procedural appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned the time limits available to Netgear for filing a Statement of Defense and any counterclaim for revocation after Huawei extended its infringement action to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Local Division Munich had ordered the second patent's claims to be separated from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. During the interim hearing, Netgear conditionally withdrew its requests to set aside the separation order and to reject the claim extension, provided Huawei agreed to a three-month deadline to respond to the claim extension running from the Court of First Instance's order of January 18, 2024.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This procedural appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned the time limit for filing a Statement of Defense after a claim extension to add a new patent. Huawei had originally filed an infringement action on June 1, 2023, based solely on EP 3611989, and later sought to extend the claim to include EP 3678321. The Local Division Munich allowed the extension, prompting Netgear to appeal. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the defendant must be afforded the same time limit to respond to a newly added patent as would apply if a fresh action had been filed regarding that patent.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning a procedural appeal filed by Netgear against a decision of the Local Division Munich that separated the portion of the action based on European Patent EP 3678321 from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The central legal principle established is that the principle of due process requires that when a new patent is added to an already pending action, the defendant must be granted the same time limit to file a statement of defense—and potentially a counterclaim for revocation—as would apply if a new action had been filed regarding that patent. During the interim hearing, Netgear conditionally withdrew certain requests subject to Huawei's agreement on an extended three-month response deadline.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a corrigendum order from the Court of Appeal correcting Headnote 2, paragraph 3 of a prior order dated February 26, 2024, due to an obvious incorrectness. The case concerns European Patent EP 4 108 782 and involves proceedings on provisional measures between 10x Genomics and Harvard College as applicants/appellees and NanoString Technologies entities as respondents/appellants. The corrected headnote restates the principles of patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC and its Protocol, clarifying that the patent claim is not merely the starting point but the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection.
AUGUST DEBOUZY v.Respondent
Martin Lionel applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for public access to several Registry documents and communications related to revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_263/2023) between BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The respondents did not submit any comments on the application. The judge-rapporteur held that Rule 262(1)(b) covers only written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties, and does not extend to Registry communications, formal-checks notifications, or court orders on procedural matters such as stays.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural requests by the plaintiff Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 646 825. The plaintiff requested that the interim hearing scheduled for March 14, 2024 be held in person rather than by video conference, and that the court provide simultaneous interpretation from German to English. The presiding judge denied both requests, holding that switching from video to in-person requires demonstrated unconditional necessity, and that the plaintiff must resolve the tension created by its own choice of German as the procedural language for an English-granted patent with international parties.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-03-04) under reference UPC-001572, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This document is uploaded for technical (CMS ) reasons only, in order to close the workflow. Margot Elsa KOKKE Digitally signed by Margot Elsa KOKKE Date: 2024.12.13 17:26:00 +01'00'
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order concerns a review request filed by Novawell against an ex parte saisie order granted to C-Kore Systems Limited, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 265 793 relating to subsea apparatus and testing. The Court examined whether Novawell's review request was filed within the 30-day time limit under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure, addressing when the 'execution of the measures' begins for purposes of calculating that deadline. The Court also considered the criteria for granting the ex parte order, the distinction between preserving evidence and inspection procedures, and the conformity of the saisie carried out by an expert assisted by a bailiff with French national law.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_495/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 28/02/2024 APPLICANT ICPillar LLC 4265 San Felipe Street, Suite 1100 77027 - Houston, Texas - US Represented by Lionel Martin RELEVANT OTHER PARTIES ARM Limited 110 Fulbou
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/02/2024 DEMANDEUR : 1) Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd 65-16, Sandan-ro 163beon-gil, Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do - KR Représenté par Pauline Debré DÉFENDEUR :
Meril Italy srl v.Respondent
This case concerns a generic application (App_7364/2024) lodged within a revocation action (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3646 825. The claimant, Meril Italy srl, requested permission to exchange further written pleadings, arguing that the defendant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, introduced new defence arguments in its rejoinder regarding the priority issue and the alleged scope of the patent. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi considered the request under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, which confers discretionary powers to the judge-rapporteur to allow further exchange of written pleadings upon a reasoned request.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The appellants (NanoString Technologies entities) appealed against an order in proceedings initiated by the respondents (10x Genomics and Harvard College). The order addresses key legal principles including the examination of formal requirements under Rule 206.2 RoP, the interpretation of patent claims under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient degree of certainty required for provisional measures under Rule 211.2 RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding preliminary measures for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on December 16, 2023, all three NanoString entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on February 4, 2024. The applicants (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the proceedings be stayed due to the insolvency, and the respondents (NanoString) agreed. The Court of Appeal held that, under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, the proceedings did not need to be stayed because the insolvency occurred only after the close of oral hearings and the case was ready for decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This order concerns two appeals filed by AIM Sport Development AG against a decision of the Local Division Helsinki that dismissed AIM's requests for a preliminary injunction, evidentiary measures, and an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 295 663, on the ground that the patent had been opted out of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal identified a potential procedural defect: AIM lodged its Statement of appeal on 20 December 2023, within two months of service, whereas the applicable Rule 224.1(b) RoP requires appeals against orders under Articles 60 and 62 UPCA to be lodged within 15 days of service. The Court invited both parties to submit written comments on whether the non-compliance should lead to inadmissibility of the appeal.
NanoString Technologies Inc.; NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH; NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.President and Fellows of Harvard College; 10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The applicants, 10x Genomics and Harvard College, sought provisional measures against NanoString Technologies entities. The order addresses key legal principles regarding formal requirements for provisional measure applications, patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient certainty required under Rule 211.2 RoP. The decision establishes important guidance on burden of proof allocation between applicants and defendants in provisional measure proceedings.
Sanofi v.Amgen, Regeneron
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2024-02-24) under reference UPC-001587, Sanofi appeared in dispute with Amgen, Regeneron concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Inc. , Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Softw
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2207270. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) UPCA, to hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and FRAND licensing together rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The court reasoned that joint hearing promotes efficiency, allows for a unified interpretation by the same panel, and is justified given the court's early operational stage and the part-time availability of some panel members.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. , OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license under Art. 33(3)(a) EPGÜ. The court further directed the Reporting Judge to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Netgear for shortening of time limits (acceleration of appeal proceedings) under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed an order of the Local Chamber Munich that granted Huawei's request to extend its claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321) in the main proceedings, which originally concerned only EP 3611989. The Court of Appeal rejected the application for acceleration, holding that filing on the last day of the applicable time limits did not justify shortening, given the respondent's interests and principles of due process, even though this could result in the statement of defense being filed in the first instance proceedings before the appeal is decided.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH a. o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-21) under reference UPC-001601, FUJIFILM Corporation appeared in dispute with Kodak GmbH a. o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_454/2023) brought by Tandem Diabetes Care entities regarding European patent EP 2 196 231, to extend the deadline for filing its defence to revocation. Roche argued that a pending preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction would not be decided before the current deadline expired, making it unreasonable to finalize submissions that might become unnecessary. The Court, presided by Judge Paolo Catallozzi, considered the request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which grants discretionary powers to extend time periods upon reasoned request.
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.