364 cases · page 11 of 13
Showing 301–329ICPillar 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 is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an application under R.262A RoP for confidentiality in appeal proceedings related to a security for costs order. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request to keep certain parts of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal confidential, and ordered that the unrestricted version be made available to ARM without any duty of confidentiality. The Court also gave ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response but rejected ICPillar's request to amend its own Statement of appeal, finding no equality of arms issue.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Milan) that had revoked measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises granted in favor of Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against AWM Srl and SCHNELL S.p.A. The Court of Appeal held that applications for preservation of evidence under Article 60 UPCA imply disclosure of the evidence to the applicant, but that the other party must be heard on confidentiality before disclosure. The case was referred back to the Court of First Instance to properly consider Progress's requests for disclosure and to address confidentiality issues.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated July 11, 2024, concerning Apple's request to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the deadline for Ona Patents SL to file its response to the appeal. The court rejected Apple's acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in expediting the proceedings did not outweigh Ona's interests in a proper proceeding. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action by Ona against Apple based on EP 2 263 098, and Apple's prior request to change the procedural language from German to English, which had been rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance.
ARM Limited and Others v.ICPillar LLC
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by ARM under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. ARM sought a declaration that ICPillar's Statement of grounds of appeal had not been served, or alternatively, an extension of the deadline for lodging its Statement of response. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request but granted the alternative request, ordering that the time period for ARM's Statement of response would end 15 days after the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) was made available to ARM's representative.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding patent EP 2 697 391. After 10x Genomics appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) that partly dismissed its application for provisional measures against Curio Bioscience, 10x subsequently requested to withdraw the appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal with Curio's consent and ordered that 10x, as the unsuccessful party, bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal by Mala Technologies Ltd. against a decision of the Court of First Instance that rejected Mala's preliminary objection in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 044 709 B1. Mala requested a stay of the first instance revocation proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal declared the stay request inadmissible because Mala's written statement did not constitute a 'reasoned request' under Rule 21.2 RoP, and further rejected the request on its merits, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Curio Bioscience's application for a new order restricting access to confidential information (R.262A RoP) in the appeal proceedings. The court held that a non-appealed R.262A order issued by the Court of First Instance continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, making a new protective order unnecessary when the same information is contained in another document lodged in the appeal. The Registry was instructed to grant access to the unredacted Statement of response only to the persons named in the existing CFI order.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Curio Bioscience's application for a new order restricting access to confidential information under R.262A RoP in the appeal proceedings. The court held that a non-appealed R.262A order from the Court of First Instance continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, making a new protective order superfluous when the same information is already protected. The Registry was instructed to grant access to the unredacted Statement of response only to the persons named in the existing CFI order of 11 March 2024.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited and Others
ICPillar LLC appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Paris) requiring it to provide security for legal costs of €400,000 in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 3000239. ICPillar requested suspensive effect of the impugned order or, alternatively, expedition of the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect and no urgency warranting expedition of the proceedings.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute arose from Volkswagen's application for security for costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP, which was denied by the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich). The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi sought to respond to NST's Statement of response to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its behavior in the market. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding it sufficiently reasoned under Rule 36 RoP, and granted NST 14 days to file a response.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi had appealed a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought permission to file additional pleadings to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding Rules 35 and 36 RoP applicable mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings and that Audi's request was sufficiently reasoned.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its request under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP for NST to provide security for legal costs. After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought leave to lodge additional written pleadings to correct certain factual submissions made by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, holding that Rules 35 and 36 RoP apply mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Others
Daedalus Prime LLC applied to withdraw its appeal against two of five respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, while continuing the appeal against the remaining three respondents. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the two respondents had a legitimate interest in the appeal being decided because they had been served with the Statement of claim, had responded to the appeal, and would be directly or indirectly affected by the outcome regarding service on affiliated companies.
Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG v.Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld a decision that an opt-out from UPC jurisdiction was invalid because it was not lodged by all proprietors of all national parts of the European patent. Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (Neo) had argued that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for European patent EP 3876490 was valid, but the Court ruled that Article 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge the opt-out application. The appeal was rejected, and the revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe was allowed to proceed before the UPC.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Others
Nera Innovations Ltd. appealed a decision of the Local Chamber Hamburg rejecting its request to serve the complaint on two Chinese Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Germany. After filing the appeal, Nera sought partial withdrawal of the appeal against the two European Xiaomi entities (Netherlands and Germany), seeking to continue the appeal only against the Chinese entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the partial withdrawal, holding that Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE had a legitimate interest in remaining in the appeal proceedings since they had already been served and had filed responses.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
Carrier Corporation, proprietor of European patent EP 3 414 708 (relating to adaptive sensor sampling of a cold chain distribution system), appealed an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Paris seat) that rejected its request to stay revocation proceedings pending parallel opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, holding that the UPC will not normally stay revocation proceedings and that the mere fact that the EPO has granted accelerated opposition proceedings is not sufficient to justify a stay under Rule 295(a) RoP.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied their application for security for costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside their appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its Statement of appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal and shortening of deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC. in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP, citing increasing legal costs. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application for security for costs against Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, and Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 883 277, which relates to electronic labels for displaying information in retail spaces. The appellant (VusionGroup SA, formerly SES-imagotag SA) sought interim measures against various Hanshow entities, alleging infringement of the patent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused products (various Nebular and Stellar Pro models) fell within the scope of claim 1 of the patent, particularly because it did not demonstrate that the antenna was positioned further toward the front face of the electronic label than the printed circuit board.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl and SCHNELL S.p.A.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted suspensive effect to an appeal filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against an order of the Local Division Milan that revoked provisional measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises, and ordered the restitution of gathered evidence to the respondents. The Court held that enforcement of the restitution order pending the appeal would render the appeal largely ineffective, as the return of evidence would be difficult to reverse if the appeal succeeded.
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.