UPClytics

Cases

Workhorse listing across all UPC cases. Filters apply across tabs.

DateCaseDivisionActionMotionOutcomeSummary
2024-09-18UPC_APP_33493/2024Nordic-Baltic RDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (full panel) on the same anonymized applicant's request for access to pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in the Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril proceedings (EP 2 628 464). This is a parallel order filed in the counterclaim proceedings under App. 33493/2024, applying the same legal principles as App_33316/2024. The headnotes and legal analysis concerning public access under Art. 45 UPCA are substantially identical to the order in App_33316/2024.
2024-09-18UPC_APP_33316/2024Nordic-Baltic RDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (full panel) on an anonymized applicant's request for access to pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in the Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril infringement proceedings (EP 2 628 464). The court set out important headnotes on public access: Art. 45 UPCA establishes a principle of openness of UPC proceedings including written procedure, and if an applicant has provided a credible explanation for seeking access, the application should be approved unless confidentiality is necessary. The court addressed whether the applicant's stated interest was sufficient to justify granting access.
2024-09-17UPC_APP_40799/2024Paris CDApplication Rop 333ProceduralProcedural onlyThe Central Division Paris panel upheld (on review under R.333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's confidentiality order protecting certain documents submitted by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies in the infringement action against Microsoft, and granted leave to appeal the underlying order.
2024-09-17UPC_APP_52033/2024Mannheim LDGeneric applicationEvidenceProcedural onlyThe Mannheim Local Division rejected Panasonic's application to hear its party expert as a witness at the oral hearing in FRAND/infringement proceedings, finding the application was submitted after close of the interim proceedings and no sufficient grounds existed.
2024-09-17UPC_APP_44664/2024The Hague LDAmend DocumentProceduralProcedural onlyThe Hague Local Division issued a procedural order on Dexcom's request to amend its counterclaim for revocation against Abbott Diabetes Care concerning EP4070727, to add a declaration of non-infringement for the Dexcom G7-System used with a G7-Receiver following Abbott's partial withdrawal of its infringement claim concerning that product.
2024-09-17UPC_APP_44663/2024The Hague LDAmend DocumentProceduralProcedural onlyThe Hague Local Division considered Dexcom's application to amend its counterclaim for revocation to add a declaration of non-infringement claim regarding the G7-System used with the G7-Receiver, following Abbott's partial withdrawal of its infringement claim (i.e. Abbott maintained infringement only for the G7-System with the G7-App, not the G7-Receiver).
2024-09-17UPC_APP_42138/2024Paris CDApplication Rop 333ProceduralDismissedOrder of the Central Division Paris Seat in Microsoft v Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies (EP 2 671 173). The panel dismissed Microsoft's application to review the judge-rapporteur's earlier order that had rejected Microsoft's request to declare Suinno's action manifestly inadmissible under R. 361 RoP. The panel held that manifest inadmissibility requires the defect to be clearly evident without in-depth analysis. Microsoft's alternative request for leave to appeal and for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU on the independence requirement under Art. 48(5) UPCA was also addressed.
2024-09-17UPC_APP_39793/2024Hamburg LDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralProcedural onlyOrder of the Hamburg Local Division granting Powell Gilbert LLP (as a member of the public) access to written pleadings and evidence in the provisional measures proceedings (ORD_33145/2024) between Ballinno B.V. and UEFA/Kinexon concerning EP 1 944 067. The Court granted access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, holding that as the provisional measures proceedings had terminated at first instance, the public interest in scrutinising the handling of an early and significant UPC provisional measures decision outweighed confidentiality concerns.
2024-09-16UPC_APP_5975/2024Paris CDGeneric applicationProceduralRevokedThe Central Division (Paris) granted BMW's revocation action by default against ITCiCo Spain S.L. under Rule 355 RoP, revoking EP 2 796 333 in its entirety for all UPC member states in which it was in force. The defendant failed to participate.
2024-09-11UPC_APP_36483/2024Milan LDApplication for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192EvidenceProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division granted Primetals Technologies Austria's ex-parte application for an order to preserve evidence at Danieli's premises concerning steel strip coiler driver technology allegedly infringing EP 2 624 977, ordering inspection, photography, document access and computer forensics assistance.
2024-09-11UPC_APP_30248/2024Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Local Division Munich ordered a correction of party designation under an analogous application of R.305 RoP, distinguishing between a mere misidentification of a defendant and the naming of a non-existent or legally incapable entity. The court allowed the claimant to substitute the correct defendant.
2024-09-10UPC_APP_45837/2024Mannheim LDApplication Rop 333ProceduralProcedural onlyThe Mannheim Local Division issued an order on panel review under Rule 333 RoP of a time extension granted by the judge-rapporteur in the Panasonic v. Xiaomi parallel infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 568 724 and EP 2 207 270.
2024-09-09ORD_50813/2024Munich LDGeneric OrderProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division vacated its earlier order appointing a translation expert after the claimant confirmed that the parties agreed on the translation of the Chinese-language documents, rendering the expert appointment unnecessary.
2024-09-09ACT_50855/2024UnknownPreliminary injunctionPI grantedThe Hamburg Local Division granted a preliminary injunction (interim measures) to Koninklijke Philips N.V. against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd., ordering the immediate seizure of infringing oral cleaning system products at the IFA 2024 trade fair in Berlin. The order was based on alleged direct infringement of EP 3 197 316.
2024-09-09UPC_APP_50655/2024Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_5/2023) granting Philips' application to reschedule the oral hearing in the EP 2 372 863 infringement case from 11 September 2024 to 23 October 2024, at Philips' request and with defendants' consent, to accommodate the pending judgment in a parallel case concerning EP 2 867 997.
2024-09-06UPC_APP_45041/2024Court of AppealGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal issued a procedural order in related appeals by Meril entities against Edwards Lifesciences, consolidating multiple appeals and addressing case management for the parallel infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings before the Central Division Paris.
2024-09-06UPC_APP_45044/2024Court of AppealGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal rejected Meril's requests to expedite three appeals (concerning revocation of EP 3 646 825) at Edwards Lifesciences' expense, finding that the potential risk of an injunction being granted in pending infringement proceedings did not justify expedition.
2024-09-06UPC_APP_47922/2024Dusseldorf LDApplication Rop 333ProceduralProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order on panel review under Rule 333 RoP of a prior order concerning security for legal costs requested by defendant Aarke AB against claimant SodaStream Industries Ltd., addressing the applicable standard of proof and factors for ordering security.
2024-09-04UPC_APP_40442/2024Milan LDProcedural OrderProceduralProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division issued a confidentiality order determining the composition of the confidentiality club in Insulet's provisional measures proceedings against Menarini, granting access to a US attorney from Goodwin Procter to allow coordination of parallel litigation strategies across jurisdictions.
2024-09-03UPC_APP_49142/2024Mannheim LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyMannheim Local Division order (presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Tochtermann) on Xiaomi entities' confidentiality protection application (R. 262A RoP) seeking elevated access restrictions on two of three third-party licence agreements submitted as exhibits in infringement proceedings by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi entities concerning EP 2 568 724. The order grants a confidentiality regime consistent with existing protections established in the case but does not grant the additional restrictions requested by Xiaomi for two of the three licence agreements. Alternative requests (to exclude the documents or treat them as not filed) were also addressed.
2024-09-02UPC_APP_33757/2024Munich LDApplication Rop305ProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division considered Panasonic's application to extend the infringement action to add OTECH Germany GmbH as an additional defendant, with defendants opposing the late amendment request under Rule 305 RoP.
2024-08-30UPC_APP_31099/2024Munich LDHearingProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v Netgear Deutschland GmbH and others (UPC_CFI_9/2024) concerning EP 3 611 989 (a Wi-Fi 6 related patent). The order follows the interim conference under R. 105.5 RoP and sets out procedural decisions and scheduling directions for the infringement action.
2024-08-27UPC_APP_41707/2024Paris LDGeneric applicationEvidenceProcedural onlyThe Paris Local Division ordered that a witness be heard in English during the oral hearing in Hewlett-Packard's infringement action against Lama France, while rejecting the request for simultaneous French interpretation on the grounds that English is a language understood by all panel members and UPC representatives.
2024-08-26UPC_APP_45255/2024Court of AppealGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal ordered Ballinno B.V. to provide security for legal costs in favour of the Kinexon companies and UEFA in the appeal proceedings, finding that Ballinno's limited liquid assets gave rise to a legitimate concern that a cost order would not be recoverable; the security was set at a reduced amount.
2024-08-26ACT_47484/2024Copenhagen LDApplication for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192EvidenceProcedural onlyOrder for preservation of evidence in proceedings before the Copenhagen Local Division. The text of the order is largely illegible in the extracted PDF; only the signature of judge Peter Juul Agergaard (dated 26 August 2024) is visible. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity is recorded in the available text.
2024-08-23UPC_APP_44130/2024Dusseldorf LDGeneric applicationmotionName.jurisdictionalProcedural onlyThe President of the Court of First Instance ruled on an application to change the language of proceedings in the infringement action by Maxeon Solar against Aiko Energy entities. The Court addressed criteria for changing the language of proceedings to the language of patent grant, holding that the position of the defendant is the decisive factor when the balance of interests is equal.
2024-08-23UPC_APP_48229/2024Lisbon LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Local Division Lisbon granted Ericsson leave to unconditionally limit its preliminary injunction claim against ASUSTek/Digital River Ireland by reclassifying Arvato Netherlands from a direct infringer to an intermediary under Art. 62(1) UPCA, narrowing the scope of injunctive relief sought.
2024-08-22UPC_APP_588681/2023Munich CDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Central Division granted Mathys & Squire's application for public access under R.262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence in the settled Astellas v Healios revocation proceedings (EP 3 056 563), holding that after settlement the integrity of proceedings is no longer at stake and public access should normally be granted.
2024-08-21UPC_APP_47039/2024Court of AppealGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal's standing judge ruled that AYLO's submission under Rule 9.1 RoP was inadmissible as filed without leave, holding that Rule 9.1 does not confer a right to file unsolicited submissions, and only an application and response are permitted under Rule 220.4 RoP.
2024-08-21UPC_APP_43845/2024Paris CDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyApplication by defendant Ballinno to stay revocation proceedings pending outcome of appeal against denial of provisional measures was refused. The court held 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 proceedings must normally allow the final oral hearing at first instance within one year.
2024-08-21ORD_47694/2024Paris LDGeneric OrderProceduralProcedural onlyThe Paris Local Division issued a procedural order in Hewlett-Packard Development Company L.P. v LAMA France (UPC_CFI_358/2023, EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669 — printer cartridge patents). The order resolves LAMA's application to have certain sections and exhibits of HP's last reply brief declared inadmissible, on grounds that they contained new arguments and evidence going beyond the permitted written procedure under R. 12 and R. 29 RoP.
2024-08-20UPC_APP_14299/2024Nordic-Baltic RDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyOrder by Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (UPC_CFI_380/2023, 20 August 2024) dismissing Meril defendants' application to stay infringement proceedings pending EPO opposition on EP 3 769 722 (transcatheter heart valve). The court clarified that R. 295(a) RoP and Art. 33(10) UPCA allow a discretionary stay during written procedure only if a rapid EPO decision is expected; R. 118.2(b) RoP applies only in the oral procedure phase.
2024-08-20UPC_APP_14061/2024Nordic-Baltic RDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (UPC_CFI_380/2023) dismissing Meril entities' application for security for costs against Edwards Lifesciences in an infringement action concerning EP 3 769 722. The Court held that the mere fact that the claimant is located in the United States does not justify ordering security for costs, as this would constitute an unjustified restriction of the right to an effective remedy; the risk of unenforceability in the US was deemed insufficient.
2024-08-16UPC_APP_43606/2024Nordic-Baltic RDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Nordic-Baltic Regional Division issued a procedural order setting the timetable for resumption of Edwards Lifesciences' infringement action against Meril entities after a stay pending EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision in T0308/23 concerning EP 2 628 464.
2024-08-16ORD_46326/2024Lisbon LDGeneric OrderProceduralProcedural onlyLisbon Local Division order on Ericsson's compliance with R. 13.1(h) RoP disclosure obligations regarding prior/pending proceedings relating to the patent. AsusTeK and co-defendants had challenged Ericsson's compliance in their opposition. The court addressed whether Ericsson must provide copies of prior art relied on, pleadings, statements of case and expert reports from other national and UPC proceedings relating to EP 2 819 131. The order resolves this disclosure dispute in a preliminary injunction action against AsusTeK for infringement of a 4G/LTE patent.
2024-08-15UPC_APP_32879/2024Hamburg LDProcedural OrderProceduralProcedural onlyThe Hamburg Local Division issued a procedural order on document production requests by Vizgen (defendant) against 10x Genomics and Harvard College (claimants) in a patent infringement action concerning EP4108782, addressing requests to disclose licence agreements and emails from US parallel proceedings.
2024-08-14UPC_APP_40651/2024Munich LDApplication RoP262AProceduralProcedural onlyMunich Local Division procedural order establishing a confidentiality regime (R. 262A RoP) for information in TCL group defendants' FRAND counterclaim and statement of defence in NEC Corporation's infringement action concerning EP 2 645 714. The court classified detailed FRAND negotiation information and financial data as confidential, restricting access on the claimant's side to named individuals and legal representatives, and imposed ongoing obligations of confidentiality.
2024-08-14UPC_APP_40654/2024Munich LDApplication RoP262AProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in NEC Corporation v TCL/TCT group (UPC_CFI_498/2023, EP 3 057 321) on confidentiality protection under R. 262A RoP. The order confirmed the terms of the agreed confidentiality club arrangement for the defendants' FRAND counterclaim submission, following agreement in principle reached between the parties.
2024-08-13UPC_APP_39047/2024Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralSettledThe Munich Local Division permitted Network System Technologies LLC's partial withdrawal of its infringement action against Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH following a settlement, while the action against Volkswagen AG and AUDI AG continued, applying R.265 RoP to a partial subjective withdrawal.
2024-08-12UPC_APP_42443/2024Munich LDApplication Rop 333ProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division addressed TCL defendants' challenge to the authority of NEC's representative, holding that a representative is deemed to act under valid authority unless challenged under Rule 285.1 RoP, and that neither CMS software nor non-listing excludes a person from acting as representative.
2024-08-12UPC_APP_36807/2024Vienna LDApplication RoP262.1 (b)ProceduralProcedural onlyOrder on a public-access application (R. 262.1(b) RoP) filed by DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o. seeking access to pleadings and evidence in an ongoing infringement case (SWARCO Futurit v. STRABAG, Vienna Local Division) involving EP 2 643 717. The court held that, for pending proceedings, a third-party applicant must show a legally qualified interest (beyond mere informational or economic interest) to outweigh the interest in protecting the integrity of ongoing proceedings. The application was denied as the proceedings were still pending.
2024-08-09UPC_APP_38165/2024Munich LDApplication RoP262AProceduralProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division issued a procedural order under Rule 262A RoP concerning the protection of confidential information submitted by the defendants in an infringement action regarding EP 4 087 195. No substantive patent ruling was made.
2024-08-08UPC_APP_44530/2024Court of AppealGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal ruled that service of written pleadings must be effected through the Court's electronic CMS and that prior communication via Germany's beA (besonderes elektronisches Anwaltspostfach) does not constitute effective service under R.278.1 RoP.
2024-08-06UPC_APP_25265/2024Munich LDAmend DocumentProceduralProcedural onlyOrder of the Munich Local Division on an application by Motorola Mobility LLC (claimant) to amend its statement of claim to include FRAND-related claims against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (defendant) under Rule 263 RoP. The Court granted the amendment, finding the conditions of Rule 263(2) RoP were met and that the amendment did not unreasonably hinder Ericsson in its defence.
2024-08-06ORD_44084/2024Munich LDGeneric OrderProceduralProcedural onlyOrder of the Munich Local Division on the service of the statement of claim on TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd. (Defendant 2), a company domiciled in China, in infringement proceedings by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning EP 3 057 321. The Court addressed the procedure for effecting service on a defendant domiciled outside the EU.
2024-08-06UPC_APP_44884/2024Dusseldorf LDGeneric applicationProceduralSettledDecision of the Düsseldorf Local Division permitting the withdrawal by Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. of its infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning EP 2 402 415 B1, on the basis of an out-of-court settlement between the parties. The proceedings were declared closed.
2024-08-06UPC_APP_22399/2024Court of AppealGeneric applicationmotionName.appeal_decisionProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal dismissed 10x Genomics' application for review (Wiederaufnahme) of an earlier appeal order concerning provisional measures in which 10x Genomics had lost to NanoString. The court held that re-examination of evidence assessment is not available via a review application, and that the court's use of the phrase 'in the court's technical assessment' did not constitute use of judges' personal opinions as evidence. The court also held there was a legal basis for the cost allocation decision in Rule 242.1 RoP.
2024-08-06UPC_APP_33560/2024Munich LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order by Local Division Munich (UPC_CFI_67/2024, 6 August 2024) dismissing applicants' request for an order dispensing with translation of certain German-language exhibits. The court held that a translation waiver was not appropriate after balancing the parties' interests under R. 24(j) and 25(1)(g) RoP and Art. 51(1) UPCA.
2024-08-06UPC_APP_25259/2024Munich LDAmend DocumentProceduralProcedural onlyProcedural order from Munich Local Division (full panel) in SEP/FRAND infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 780 758. Motorola Mobility LLC (claimant) applied for leave to amend its claim to add a request for an injunction. The order addresses whether Motorola could have made the amendment earlier with reasonable diligence. Application denied: the panel found no justification for the late amendment, as the relevant circumstances had been known to Motorola since at least December 2023. No ruling on patent infringement or validity.
2024-08-05UPC_APP_28993/2024Dusseldorf LDGeneric applicationProceduralProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division granted the applicant's request to release a cash deposit that had been provided as security for enforcement of an ex-parte provisional measures order, on the basis that the applicant had subsequently provided a bank guarantee and the double security was unnecessary. The court clarified that while such an exchange of security is permissible in principle, it remains subject to the court's discretion under R. 352.2 RoP, balancing the interests of all parties.
Page 14 of 18 · 886