UPC Roundup (1 week): second medical use; evidence gathering through on-site experiments; various new cases

1. CoA: confidentiality concerns don’t warrant splitting up case

In Corning v. Hisense, TCL and LG, Standing Judge (of the Court of Appeal (CoA)) Patricia Rombach affirmed (PDF) an order by the Mannheim Local Division (LD) denying a motion to sever. The Mannheim LD based its decision, at least in part, on the fact that any of the defendants’ concerns over the sharing of confidential information were of their own making as they all appointed the same counsel. This changed in the meantime, with Hisense having different counsel than TCL and LG.

Judge Rombach granted discretionary review, but affirmed the denial of the motion to sever. Confidential information can be protected without splitting up a case.

2. Dusseldorf LD: second medical use

(link to detailed article)

In Sanofi v. Amgen, neither infringement nor invalidity was established. The Dusseldorf LD laid out a set of non-exhaustive factors to consider when determining whether a patent on a second medical use is infringed. It also discussed validity. This case has the potential for appellate clarification.

3. CD Milan: evidence gathering can involve on-site experiments

The Milan seat of the Central Division (CD) made an evidence preservation decision in Maschio Gaspardo v. Spiridonakis (PDF) according to which the court will see a certain machine in motion at the defendant’s nearest site (in the Italian city of Cremona). That machine weighs two tons, making it impractical to carry it into the courtroom. The order clarifies that evidence gathering is not limited to the seizure of samples, but can also be “dynamic” if a process must be watched in motion (and at the court’s direction). The CD interprets the UPC’s rules as allowing dynamic evidence-gathering, and also points to German case law (the concept of “Augenschein”).

4. UPC played key role in 10x Genomics v. Bruker settlement

(link to detailed article)

Bruker, the acquirer of NanoString’s assets, was under pressure in the UPC as well as in U.S. district court. The last major event in the worldwide dispute between 10x Genomics and Bruker was a decision by the European Patent Office (EPO) to uphold in a slightly amended form the patent that led to the 2023 preliminary injunction in the UPC. A permanent injunction could have come down now in a matter of months.

5. New cases

5.1 Regular infringement complaints (main proceedings)

• Powermat v. Anker over EP2266123 (“Inductive transmission system”) (Munich LD)
• Primetals v. Danieli over EP2624977 (“Driver for a steel strip coiling installation”) (Milan LD)

5.2 Applications for provisional measures (preliminary injunction motions)

• Two Hamburg LD cases:
  • Dyson v. Teqphone et al. over EP3119235 (“Attachment for a hand held appliance”)
  • Steros GPA v. OTEC Präzisionsfinish over EP4249647 (“Electrolytic medium and electropolishing process using such electrolytic medium”)
• Cilag & Ethicon v. RiVOLUTION in two venues over different patents:
  • EP2515768 (“Motor-driven surgical cutting instrument with electric actuator directional control assembly”) (Munich LD)
  • EP3689262 (“Staple cartridge”) (The Hague LD)

6. Recent and upcoming hearings

Recent hearings:

• Monday, May 12, 2025:
  • ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v. PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG and XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Italia S.r.l. v. Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH (CoA, two Rule 220.2 RoP appeals heard jointly)
• Tuesday, May 13, 2025:
  • Tiroler Rohre GmbH v. SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy (Munich LD)
  • 10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience (Dusseldorf LD)
  • EOflow v. Insulet (interim hearing in revocation action; Central Division (CD) Milan)
• Wednesday, May 14, 2025:
  • Steros GPA Innovative S. L. v. OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH (Hamburg LD)

Upcoming hearings:

• Tuesday, May 20, 2025:
  • Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics GmbH (Munich LD)
• Thursday, May 22, 2025:
  • Nera Innovations Ltd. v. Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. (Hamburg LD)
• Monday, June 2, 2025:
  • Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation (CD Paris; infringement and revocation counterclaim)
• Tuesday, June 3, 2025:
  • Maguin SAS v. Tiru and Valinea Energie v. Tiru (CoA; Rule 220.1(c) RoP appeals)
  • Manuela Hofmann v. Essetre Holding SpA (CD Paris; revocation)
• Wednesday, June 4, 2025:
  • Sibio v. Abbott (CD Paris; revocation)
  • Maschio Gaspardo v. Spiridonakis (CD Milan)
• Thursday, June 5, 2025:
  • Philips v. Belkin and vice versa (CoA; Rule 220.1 RoP appeals)
  • Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v. AWM s.r.l. & Schnell s.p.a. (Milan LD)
• Thursday, June 12, 2025:
  • Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.,Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH (Hamburg LD)

7. Around the court

• The UPC appears optimistic (at least cautiously optimistic) that the new case management system (CMS) can go live in July. Its look and feel will apparently bear some resemblance to that of the EPO (May 15, 2025 UPC news item).
• The UPC has appointed a new technically qualified judge, French physicist Kristian Jauregui Urbahn (May 13, 2025 UPC news item). He is a patentee (EP3166307: “Capturing device for a motor vehicle, driver assistance system as well as motor vehicle”).