353 cases · page 10 of 12
Showing 271–299Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns an application for discretionary review by the Court of Appeal under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The dispute involves three infringement proceedings between Xiaomi entities (as defendants) and Panasonic Holdings Corporation (as plaintiff) concerning European Patents EP 3096315, EP 2568724, and EP 2207270 before the Local Division Mannheim. The contested issue relates to the expiration and extension of deadlines under Rule 29(d) RoP for the plaintiff's reply to the counterclaim for revocation, rejoinder to the reply to the statement of defense, and response to a request to amend the patent, particularly in light of the plaintiff's submission of a partially redacted reply and subsequent confidentiality requests regarding third-party license agreements.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Volkswagen AG's request for rectification of a prior order that had directed Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in three related proceedings. Volkswagen sought to have the order rectified to include a notification under R.158.4 RoP that failure to provide security could result in a decision by default under R.355 RoP. The Court of Appeal declined rectification but issued a separate order providing the required notification to NST.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning notification pursuant to Rule 158.4 RoP in proceedings involving three European patents. Audi AG had requested rectification of a prior order that required NST to provide security for costs, seeking inclusion of a notification that failure to provide security could result in a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The Court declined to rectify the original order but provided the notification separately to NST.
Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding the review of an order for interim measures in a patent dispute between Mammut Sports Group entities (based in Switzerland and Germany) and Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (based in Germany). The appeal raised multiple procedural and substantive issues, including the scope of appellate review in interim measure proceedings, the clarity required for appeal grounds, the treatment of late submissions, the assessment of urgency and waiting periods under Rule 211.4, and the applicability of Rule 263 to applications for interim orders. The Court of Appeal issued headnotes establishing important legal principles on these matters, while the full operative provisions of the order were not fully available in the provided text.
OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal addressed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Division Mannheim concerning applications for the production of evidence under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendants sought evidence to support their FRAND defense in patent infringement actions brought by Panasonic concerning three European patents declared as standard-essential for the 4G mobile telecommunications standard. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant may rely on Rule 190.1 to request production of evidence, and that the first-instance court has discretion in balancing the defendant's interest in obtaining evidence useful for its FRAND defense against the other party's interest in protecting confidential information.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Volkswagen AG's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to dismiss infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Volkswagen had raised preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and the validity of opt-out withdrawals, and had sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP on grounds that NST lacked standing and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to defer preliminary objections to the main proceedings, and that Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and does not require a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc. v.Ona Patents SL
This appeal concerned Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division regarding EP 2 263 098. The President of the Court of First Instance had rejected Apple's application on 18 June 2024, finding that Ona had relevant reasons to file in German given its contact person's language skills, the location of defendants' offices, and parallel German-language proceedings. On appeal, the Court of Appeal clarified that when assessing a language change request on fairness grounds, the internal working language of the parties and their ability to coordinate internally and obtain technical support are relevant circumstances, while the existence of other proceedings between the parties before a national court is of less relevance.
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
This case concerns an appeal by Google against the rejection of its application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in patent infringement proceedings initiated by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of First Instance had denied Google's request, finding that Ona had legitimate reasons to file in German, including its contact person's fluency in German and parallel proceedings in Munich. The Court of Appeal addressed the additional circumstances relevant to a fairness-based change of language request under Article 49(5) UPCA.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Audi AG's appeal against orders of the Munich Local Division that had dismissed Audi's preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP in three parallel patent infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Audi had argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over damages claimed in the UK and Northern Ireland, that the opt-out withdrawal was invalid due to lack of power of attorney, that NST lacked standing for pre-acquisition damages, and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the timing of preliminary objection decisions is within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and not for evaluating the sufficiency of claim substantiation.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Audi AG's applications for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court held that NST, a small US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity with only two employees, no physical assets, and limited funding, failed to provide sufficient comfort that a possible cost order would be recoverable. The Court ordered NST to provide security for costs in amounts of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000, and EUR 300,000 in the three related proceedings, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank, within three weeks of service.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This appeal concerned a dispute over European patent EP 2 044 709 B1, which had effect only in Germany. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that while Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply to UPC proceedings during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, they did not require the UPC to decline jurisdiction because the German revocation action and the UPC proceedings did not involve the same parties. However, the Court of Appeal granted Mala's auxiliary request to stay the UPC revocation proceedings pending a final decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the parallel German revocation proceedings.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Volkswagen AG appealed orders of the Munich Local Division dated 23 April 2024 that had denied Volkswagen's applications for security for costs in three related patent infringement proceedings involving European Patents EP 1 875 683, EP 1 552 399, and EP 1 552 669. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, finding that NST had failed to provide sufficiently substantiated information demonstrating it could cover a possible cost order, and that NST's status as an SME did not exempt it from providing security. The Court ordered security in reduced amounts of EUR 100,000 in two cases and EUR 300,000 in the third, payable within three weeks by deposit or EU bank guarantee.
ICPillar LLC v.SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Germany GmbH, Apical Limited, Arm Sweden AB, ARM Limited
ICPillar LLC appealed a Court of First Instance order requiring it to provide security for costs (EUR 400,000) in its patent infringement action against ARM entities before the Paris Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the Insurance Policy submitted for the first time on appeal would be disregarded under R.222.2 RoP, and that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank did not constitute adequate security under R.158 RoP.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Central Division, Paris Seat, which had rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing the risk of an injunction in parallel infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, holding that the interests advanced by Meril did not justify shortening the procedural timetable at Edwards' expense.
Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) that rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing potential irreparable harm from a possible injunction in parallel infringement proceedings and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, finding that Meril's interests did not outweigh Edwards' legitimate interest in having the appeals proceed according to the regular timetable.
Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This is an appeal order concerning the referral of an infringement action from the Local Chamber Mannheim to the Central Division Paris. Advanced Bionics sought to have the infringement case transferred to the Central Division to be heard together with a nullity action they had filed against the same patent (EP 4074373). The Court of Appeal held that a connection for related cases under Rule 340 of the Rules of Procedure cannot result in a case being referred to another chamber outside the possibilities provided by Article 33 UPCA, and that Article 33 UPCA does not permit the referral of an infringement action from a local chamber to the central chamber without the parties' consent.
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This appeal concerned the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2479680, owned by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and exclusively licensed to Sling TV L.L.C. The appellants, AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYlo Freesites Ltd, challenged an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim dated April 5, 2024. The Court of Appeal clarified that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) and Article 71b(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and alleged damage may occur there, including through internet-based activities accessible in that territory.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Respondent
This case concerns a request by Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, UEFA, and Kinexon GmbH for security for costs of the appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. before the Court of Appeal. Ballinno had previously been ordered by the Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) to provide €56,000 in security for costs and had its application for provisional measures dismissed. The appeal concerns both the security order and the main order dismissing the provisional measures application. The matter relates to European Patent EP 1 944 067.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an applicant's request for review of the Registrar's decision rejecting his application for registration in the list of representatives before the UPC. The applicant claimed to meet the qualification requirements under Article 48(2) of the UPC Agreement, including passing the European qualifying examination and the German patent attorney examination, and argued that his 'Munich Year' training (1997-1998) was equivalent to the 'Law for Patent Attorneys' course at Hagen distance university referenced in Rule 12.1(a)(ii) EPLC Rules. The Registrar had rejected the application, finding that only courses and certificates explicitly listed in Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules could be recognized as qualifying credentials.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal by several Apple entities against an order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) dated June 18, 2024, which rejected a request to change the language of proceedings to the language in which European Patent EP 2 263 098 was granted. The order addresses a Rule 36 application filed by the respondent Ona Patents SL, seeking to disregard the appellants' reply filed on August 15, 2024, or alternatively to be granted an extension to respond. The court reasoned that under Rule 239.2 RoP, the written procedure in appeal proceedings is concluded when the judge summons the parties to oral hearing, and any Rule 36 request for further submissions must be filed before that date.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation filed an application for discretionary review with the Court of Appeal challenging an order of the Court of First Instance (Central Division Paris) dated 2 July 2024, which had rejected Microsoft's request to declare Suinno's patent infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173 as manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP. The Court of Appeal addressed whether such an order denying a Rule 361 request is admissible for appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP, and whether it qualifies as a case management order requiring issuance by a panel. The standing judge issued the order addressing these procedural questions.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The Aylo companies (AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYLO Freesites Ltd) sought review of a Local Division Mannheim order dated July 22, 2024, which had rejected their request to exclude three in-house counsel of the Dish and Sling companies from a confidentiality ring established under Rule 262A RoP. The Local Division found that the three US-based in-house counsel, who are patent attorneys admitted before the USPTO, were sufficiently reliable to be granted access to confidential information. The Aylo companies requested the Court of Appeal to admit the appeal against this order.
Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect under R.223 RoP in a patent dispute concerning EP 2 713 879. The appellants (Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) appealed a preliminary injunction order issued by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court of Appeal found the first instance order manifestly erroneous insofar as it extended to Ireland, since Ireland had signed but not ratified the UPCA and was therefore not a Contracting Member State.
Amgen AB, Amgen s.r.l., Amgen GmbH, Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O., Amgen N.V. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a procedural question concerning the effective date of service of the Appellant's Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings related to EP 3167888. The Appellant had uploaded the Statement of grounds to the Respondents' representative's German special electronic lawyer's mailbox (beA) on 27 July 2024, while the Court notified the Respondents via the Case Management System (CMS) on 29 July 2024. The Court held that under Rule 278.1 and 2 RoP, written pleadings are served by the Registry through the electronic CMS, and prior inter-party communication via another electronic system such as beA does not constitute effective service. The Court ordered that service of the Statement of grounds of appeal was effected on 29 July 2024.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against five defendants, including Chinese and Taiwanese entities, seeking to serve the Statement of claim on the Chinese Xiaomi companies via Xiaomi Germany and on MediaTek (Taiwan) via MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The Local Division dismissed the request, holding that service must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected Daedalus's appeal, confirming that group companies in Contracting Member States cannot automatically be treated as statutory seats, central administrations, or principal places of business of defendants domiciled in China or Taiwan, and that Hague Convention methods (for China) and diplomatic/consular channels (for Taiwan) must first be attempted.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for re-trial (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens) filed by 10x Genomics and Harvard College against NanoString Technologies. The re-trial application challenged the Court of Appeal's earlier order of February 26, 2024, which had overturned a first-instance interim injunction in favor of 10x and ordered 10x to bear the costs. The application alleged fundamental procedural errors, including violation of the right to be heard and Article 6 ECHR. The Court of Appeal addressed key principles regarding the interpretation of its own reasoning, the non-reviewability of evidentiary assessment in re-trial proceedings, and the legal basis for cost allocation in summary proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH
The Court of Appeal addressed the service of a patent infringement statement of claim on Xiaomi entities located in China and Hong Kong. It held that service cannot be effected merely through a sister Xiaomi company domiciled in a contracting member state, as such a group company cannot automatically be treated as the defendant's registered seat, head office, principal place of business, or a place of business under Rule 271.5(a). The Court further held that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention pursuant to Rule 274.1(a)(ii) must generally be pursued before resorting to alternative service methods under Rule 275.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request for expedition of its appeal against an order of the Hamburg Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning EP 3167888. The court held that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time limit for the respondent's statement of response, and that Alexion's arguments about seeking patent protection quickly and the appeal involving a purely legal issue were insufficient.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three Asian TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal held that service by email to a person not authorized to accept service, and public service by written notice displayed at the court's premises, were not permissible at this stage of the proceedings. The appeal was rejected, with the Court confirming that Hague Convention service attempts should normally be made before alternative methods of service can be employed.
Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal addressed a procedural question regarding where a cost determination application (Kostenfestsetzung) must be filed when it follows an order or decision of the Court of Appeal. Both parties agreed, and the Court of Appeal confirmed, that such applications must be filed with the Court of First Instance and decided by the Rapporteur of that instance, even when the application relates exclusively or partially to the costs of the appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute concerned EP 3883277, where the Local Chamber Munich had rejected VusionGroup's application for interim measures and ordered it to bear Hanshow's costs.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.