Meril Italy Srl v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsRealtek Semiconductor Corporation

This UPC decision addresses a procedural gap regarding the reimbursement of court fees when an application for interim measures is withdrawn. The Court ruled that despite the strict wording of the Rules of Procedure, the principle allowing fee recovery upon withdrawal could be analogously applied to interim measure applications. This provides clarity and predictability for practitioners dealing with early-stage litigation in the UPC.

Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsMediaTek, Inc.

In a complex infringement case involving Huawei and MediaTek concerning 5G-capable Dimensity chips, the UPC issued an interim procedural order focusing on confidentiality. The court granted extensive protection for trade secrets related to licensing agreements, limiting access to highly sensitive information only to specific parties. This decision highlights the UPC's robust mechanisms for managing confidential data during litigation, which is crucial in high-tech patent disputes.

Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application for further written pleadings during an ongoing infringement appeal. The claimant, Hurom, sought additional time to respond to new arguments and prior art documents introduced by the respondents (NUC). The court ultimately rejected this request, prioritizing the principle of efficient conduct and the upcoming oral hearing. This ruling reinforces the strict procedural timelines within the UPC's written phase.

Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBHvsZentiva Portugal, Lda.

In this preliminary ruling, the UPC confirmed its exclusive jurisdiction over a pharmaceutical patent infringement case involving nintedanib. The Defendant attempted to challenge the Court's competence by arguing that the dispute was administrative, stemming from a national health authority's communication. However, the UPC rejected this objection, clarifying that the core issue is a private enforcement action based on the threat of infringement, not an administrative review. This decision allows the case to proceed to the substantive merits phase.

Irdeto B.V.vsSZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.

This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a dispute over court fees related to counterclaims for revocation. The claimant, Irdeto B.V., initiated an infringement action against several defendants, including SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. The core issue was whether Defendant 1 could use the fee paid by Defendants 2-4 when submitting its own counterclaim later. The Court ruled that because Defendant 1's submission constituted a separate action/counterclaim in time, it must pay a distinct court fee.