technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 55 of 58 · 1,714 total
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an action for declaration of non-infringement filed by Tandem Diabetes Care entities against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 196 231. While Roche's preliminary objection on jurisdiction was pending, Roche filed a procedural application seeking an extension of the deadline to file its defence. The Court examined Roche's request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, weighing arguments relating to the pending preliminary objection, parallel revocation proceedings, and the potential for a stay under Rule 76(3).
Plant-e B.V., Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action (UPC_CFI_239/2023) brought by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. against Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo) regarding European Patent No. EP2137782. The defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation, raising the question under Article 33(3) UPCA of whether to bifurcate or jointly hear the infringement and revocation proceedings. Both parties jointly requested a joint hearing, and the panel decided to proceed with both matters jointly for reasons of procedural expediency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. against a cost order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings initiated by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 763 331 relating to a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses. After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist declaration that Edwards accepted, the first-instance court found the interim measures moot, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Meril to bear the costs up to €200,000. Meril appealed seeking to shift the costs to Edwards and requested suspensive effect of the appeal.
Panasonic Holding Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
1 Local division Mannheim UPC_CFI_210/2023 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 February 2024 here: Application for production of documents and protection of confidential information acc. to R. 190/191, 262, 262A RoP Patent at issue 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.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-13) under reference UPC-001610, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against three Dexcom entities before the Paris Local Division. The order addresses service difficulties, particularly with Dexcom International Limited in Ireland, and aligns the deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence for all three defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur approved the parties' agreed reasonable extension, setting the starting point for all defendants at 15/01/2024, with the Statement of Defence expected by 15/04/2024.
SAS LASER COMPONENTS v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-12) under reference UPC-001614, SAS LASER COMPONENTS appeared in dispute with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
ICPillar LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP3000239, brought an infringement action against twelve defendants of the ARM group of companies. When standard service methods failed—particularly delivery to Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. in Poland—the Claimant sought authorization under Rule 275.1 of the Rules of Procedure for alternative methods of service. The Court authorized alternative service only to the extent that the original methods had failed, rejecting the proposed method that merely replicated the already-attempted registered letter approach, and clarified the application of the ten-day delay rule under the Hague Service Convention.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-12) under reference UPC-001612, ICPillar LLC appeared in dispute with ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott, Abbott B.V., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott France, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, including multiple Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The dispute centered on the alignment of deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence (SoD) across all defendants, given that service on some defendants was delayed or still in progress. Following a case management meeting where all parties orally agreed on a reasonable extension date, the Judge-Rapporteur ordered that the time limit for filing the SoD be aligned for all defendants, with the starting point set at 15 December 2023 and the SoD expected by 15 March 2024.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc./Netgear Deutschland GmbH/Netgear International Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three NETGEAR entities regarding European Patents EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321. The central procedural issue was whether to change the procedural language from German to English, given that both patents were granted in English and two members of the panel were not native German speakers. While the defendants consented to a full language change and the plaintiff opposed it but was open to conducting the oral hearing in English, the presiding judge ordered that the oral hearing be conducted in English while keeping the procedural language as German.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited
This order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three NETGEAR entities regarding European Patents EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321, both granted in English. The court addressed whether to change the procedural language from German to English, and whether the oral hearing should be conducted in English. The defendants consented to a change of language to English, while the plaintiff opposed a full change but was open to conducting the oral hearing in English. The presiding judge ultimately ordered that the oral hearing be conducted in English, applying the flexibility principles of Rule 1.1 RoP.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Respondent
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed a revocation action against ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking revocation of European patent EP 2 796 333 before the Central Division (Paris Seat). ITCiCo Spain S.L. filed a procedural application seeking an extension of the time limit for delivery of its statement of defence to 29 February 2024, citing delayed access to case exhibits through the Case Management System and the illness of its long-standing European Patent Attorney. BMW opposed the extension, arguing that service had been completed on 25 November 2023 and the defence was accordingly due by 25 January 2024. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi issued the order on 9 February 2024.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_424/2023 Procedural order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 9 February 2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 16/11/2023 Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego -
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Respondent
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2024-02-08) under reference UPC-001620, Ocado Innovation Limited appeared in dispute with Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1, filed by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College. Following the close of written pleadings, the judge-rapporteur held an interim conference addressing several procedural matters, including the translation of a prior art document, the admissibility of late-filed prior art (D46), the handling of auxiliary requests, and the value of proceedings. The court admitted D46 into the proceedings after the Defendant withdrew its objection, set the value of proceedings at EUR 7,500,000, and scheduled the oral hearing for 17 April 2024 in Munich.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, primarily comprising various Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The order addresses service difficulties and aligns the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur accepted the parties' agreed extension, setting the Statement of Defence deadline to 15 March 2024, with the starting point aligned to 15 December 2023.
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.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, primarily comprising various Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The order addresses service difficulties and aligns the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur accepted the parties' agreed extension, setting the Statement of Defence deadline to 15 March 2024, with the starting point aligned to 15 December 2023.
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v.Respondent
The Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to the written pleadings and evidence in proceedings between Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Neither respondent opposed the request, with Suinno limiting its objection to confidential portions and Microsoft leaving the decision to the Court's discretion. The Presiding Judge held that the interest in ensuring impartial and independent proceedings without external interference prevails over the interest in file access where the matter concerns a purely legal and general issue, and that such access can be satisfied through the written pleadings and evidence already available.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
This is a cost decision (Kostenfestsetzungsentscheidung) by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. Following the Court of Appeal's reversal of the first-instance decision—which had found infringement and dismissed the revocation counterclaim—the defendants sought reimbursement of costs already paid under the original cost decision, as well as costs for both instances. The court held that when a cost decision is issued before appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is subsequently amended, the original cost decision loses its basis, and amounts already reimbursed are recoverable in subsequent cost proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finlan Oy, HP Italy S.r.l, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP - Computing and Printi
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-19) under reference UPC-001635, Dolby International AB appeared in dispute with HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finlan Oy, HP Italy S.r.l, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP - Computing and Printi concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
1 Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 18 January 2024 concerning an application for suspensive effect DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS 1. Meril GmbH Bornheimer Straße 135-137, 53119 Bonn, Germany 2. Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. M1-M2, Meril Park, Su
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-17) under reference UPC-001638, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
Netgear Inc., Germany GmbH, International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This case concerns a request for discretionary review before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the admissibility of an appeal against an order by a judge rapporteur. The judge rapporteur had refused to refer his earlier decision (that the Applicants' preliminary objection would be dealt with in the main proceedings) to the panel for review under Rule 333.1 RoP. The standing judge allowed the discretionary review request, permitting the applicants to appeal the 11 December 2023 order, and referred the case to the President of the Court of Appeal for assignment to a panel.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore AS [et al.], Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2024-01-10) under reference UPC-001641, Ocado Innovation Limited appeared in dispute with Autostore AS [et al.], Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Edrich u.a.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-03) under reference UPC-001644, Philips IP Ventures B.V. appeared in dispute with Edrich u.a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Edrich u.a.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-03) under reference UPC-001643, Koninklijke Philips N.V. appeared in dispute with Edrich u.a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.