VLSI agrees to dismiss latest semiconductor patent complaint against Intel in Delaware

The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.

The Paris CD held that it had jurisdiction over an action for a declaration of non-infringement (DNI) filed before the patents were granted, provided grant occurred before the statement of defense was filed and therefore the patentee's opt-outs filed after the action were ineffective. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but did not adopt that test. It held that the action concerned the patents, not the applications, and so fell within the UPC's competence. Whether a DNI action can be filed before grant is a question of admissibility for the main proceedings, which cannot be raised by preliminary objection. The Court of Appeal agreed that the opt-outs were ineffective because the action had already been brought.

Proceedings before the UPC Central Division must be conducted in the language in which the patent was granted. There is no legal basis to change that language. In a revocation action concerning a German-language patent, the Paris Central Division rejected a request to switch the language of proceedings to English, and also rejected a subsidiary request to allow written submissions in English and hold the hearing in English, holding that Article 49(6) UPCA permits no derogation and reflects a deliberate legislative choice.