364 cases · page 10 of 13
Showing 271–299Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
Google appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court that rejected its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2 263 098). The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the President CFI had incorrectly assessed fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA, and ordered that English be used as the language of the proceedings.
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
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Volkswagen AG's requests for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity. The Court held that NST's failure to provide sufficient comfort regarding its ability to cover potential cost orders justified ordering security, and that the relative financial positions of the parties are not a criterion under R.158 RoP. NST was ordered to provide security of EUR 100,000 in two cases and EUR 300,000 in the third, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank within three weeks.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited & Others
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 Italy Srl, Meril GmbH, and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
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 Italy Srl, Meril GmbH, and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
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 AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics SARL v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Advanced Bionics against the rejection of its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action concerning EP 4 074 373. The court held that the President of the Court of First Instance correctly refused the language change, given that the parties are based in countries where German is an official language, and that a change at this advanced stage of the proceedings would create practical difficulties.
Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
Anordnung
AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appeal filed by AYLO entities against an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim rejecting their objections to jurisdiction. The court held that the UPC has international jurisdiction for an infringement action when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and the alleged damage may occur in that state, including via internet-based services accessible in that territory. The court also confirmed that the list of objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure is exhaustive and does not extend to arguments such as abusive conduct or manifest lack of merit.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, and Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by Kinexon companies and UEFA for security for costs in appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. The court ruled that R.158 RoP and R.222.2 RoP are applicable to the Court of Appeal, and ordered Ballinno to provide security of €25,000 within two weeks, finding that Ballinno's financial situation raised legitimate concerns about the recoverability of any cost order.
Applicant v.Registrar of the Unified Patent Court (UPC_CoA_364/2024, UPC_CoA_393/2024)
A German patent attorney applied for registration in the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court (UPC). The Registrar rejected the application because the applicant failed to demonstrate completion of one of the specifically listed courses or certificates under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules. The President of the Court of Appeal upheld the rejection, finding that the applicant's 'Münchner Jahr' training from 1997-1998, while potentially covering equivalent content, did not constitute proof of successful completion of the specifically required 'Recht für Patentanwältinnen und Patentanwälte' course at Fernuniversität Hagen or the 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau.'
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 263 098. The Apple entities appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellants' further submission filed on August 15, 2024, because the Rule 36 application seeking leave to file additional pleadings was submitted after the interim proceedings had already been closed on August 13, 2024.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Microsoft's request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. Microsoft had sought review of a judge-rapporteur's order dated 2 July 2024 that rejected Microsoft's application under Rule 361 RoP to declare Suinno's patent infringement action manifestly inadmissible. The Court held that the request was inadmissible because the impugned order was a case management order issued by the judge-rapporteur, which can only be appealed if first reviewed by a panel under Rule 333.1 RoP.
Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Billing Limited, Aylo Freesites Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This case concerns a discretionary review under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The Aylo companies sought leave to appeal a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim that granted three US-based in-house counsels of Dish and Sling access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the abstract risk of misuse by in-house counsels is insufficient to deny access absent concrete circumstances justifying such suspicion.
Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Billing Limited, and Aylo Freesites Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C.
Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application filed by the Aylo companies under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The Aylo companies had applied for discretionary review of a decision of the Local Division Mannheim and sought leave to appeal, and after being heard under Rule 220.4 RoP, they filed a further application under Rule 9.1 RoP. The Standing Judge dismissed the application, holding that Rule 9.1 RoP does not grant parties an independent right to file applications on their own initiative, and that any further submissions beyond the application and response contemplated by Rule 220.4 RoP require admission by the Standing Judge.
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.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company & Ors.
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., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.
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.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against several Xiaomi entities, including Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. (based in China), and Xiaomi H.K. Limited (based in Hong Kong). Panasonic sought to serve these Asian Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, a sister company within the same corporate group. The Court of Appeal dismissed Panasonic's appeal, holding that a defendant company in China or Hong Kong cannot be served through a group company in a contracting member state without further justification, and that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention must generally be made before alternative service methods can be employed.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected as inadmissible an application by 10x Genomics and Harvard College for re-examination of proceedings (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens) under R.245 RoP. The application sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's earlier decision overturning a preliminary injunction in favor of 10x regarding EP 4108782. The court held that the phrase indicating assessment by a technically qualified court did not constitute use of personal judicial opinion as evidence, and that the cost order in the interim proceedings had a proper legal basis under R.242.1 RoP.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
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.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company & Others
Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision of the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court that dismissed its application for provisional measures against multiple Amgen entities concerning EP 3167888. Alongside its appeal, Alexion requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under Rule 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time period for lodging the statement of response.
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.
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 TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that service by email to a person not authorised to accept service, or by public notice at the Local Division's premises, was not permissible at this stage, and that Hague Convention service methods should normally be attempted first before alternative methods could be employed.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd & Others v.VusionGroup SA
This case concerns a procedural question before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding where a cost determination application must be filed when it follows an order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that cost determination applications must be filed at the Court of First Instance, even when they relate exclusively or partially to costs of appeal proceedings, and referred Hanshow's application to the Rapporteur of the Court of First Instance.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against the denial of its preliminary injunction application by the UPC Local Division The Hague regarding patent EP 3 831 283. Abbott had submitted four auxiliary requests in its appeal, which the Respondents sought to have disregarded. The Court of Appeal decided to defer ruling on the allowability of the auxiliary requests to the oral hearing and granted the Respondents an extension of deadline for their Statement of response, ultimately rejecting Abbott's requests in its R.9 RoP application.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco (UK) Limited
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns an application by ICPillar LLC under R.262A RoP for confidentiality regarding Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal in proceedings concerning patent EP 3000239. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request for confidentiality, finding the reasons insufficient to justify protection of the information. The Court then addressed procedural consequences, granting ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response while rejecting ICPillar's argument that this created an equality of arms issue.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Respondent]
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a request for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP. The appellants (OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV) sought to suspend the deadline for filing their rejoinder pending the appeal of a decision by the Brussels local division that refused to extend the deadline beyond August 1, 2024. The standing judge held that the request for suspensive effect was admissible but unfounded, and referred the remaining requests to the competent chamber of the Court of Appeal.
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.