364 cases · page 12 of 13
Showing 331–359Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.
Daedalus Prime LLC sought a panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order denying its request for an extension of time to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings concerning EP 2792100. The Court of Appeal confirmed the denial, holding that Daedalus could and should have sought external advice and comprehensively set out its arguments before lodging the Statement of claim, and that CMS issues were insufficient to justify an extension.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether AIM Sport Development AG's appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Helsinki) was timely. The Court of First Instance had dismissed AIM's infringement and provisional measures actions concerning EP 3 295 663 for lack of competence due to an opt-out, and incorrectly stated a two-month appeal period applied. The Court of Appeal held that under Rule 224.1(b) RoP, the correct appeal period for orders under Article 62 UPCA was 15 days, but due to the ambiguity in the rules and the misleading information provided by the Court of First Instance, AIM's appeal was admissible under the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) that had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The appeal concerned proceedings in which 10x Genomics sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience regarding EP 2 697 391. The Court of Appeal held that the lower court's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of fairness under Article 49(5) EPGÜ and ordered English as the language of proceedings.
Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG v.Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Toyota's request for a decision by default against Neo Wireless's appeal of an order rejecting Neo's preliminary objection to the UPC's jurisdiction. The court held that Neo had timely corrected formal deficiencies and that the 15-day deadline for filing a statement of appeal under R.224.1(b) RoP runs from the date of service of the decision granting leave to appeal, not from the date of the impugned order.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore AS and Others
This case concerns an appeal by Ocado Innovation Limited against an order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division granting a member of the public access to the statement of claim in infringement proceedings Ocado had brought against multiple Autostore entities. The Court of Appeal addressed two issues: the composition of its panel under Art. 9(1) UPCA, and public access to written pleadings and evidence under R.262.1(b) RoP. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a panel of three legally qualified judges may decide purely non-technical matters, and that the balance of interests favored granting access to the statement of claim.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed the date of service of the appeal and statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings concerning EP 3 611 989. Due to a misconfiguration of the Case Management System (CMS) for service in appeal proceedings, Xiaomi's representative was unaware that service had occurred on March 13, 2024. The court clarified that, in the interest of due process and legal certainty, the date of service was deemed to be April 3, 2024, when Xiaomi's representative accessed the CMS and voluntarily accepted service.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court against five European patents owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., but mistakenly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' in the statements for revocation. The Court of First Instance rejected Juul Labs International's preliminary objection and ordered rectification of the defendant's name. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor of the patents.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions against Juul Labs International, Inc. at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, but incorrectly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' instead of 'Juul Labs International, Inc.' The Court of First Instance allowed rectification of the defendant's name, and Juul Labs International appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor of the patents at issue.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court against five European patents owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., but mistakenly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' in the statements for revocation. The Court of First Instance rejected Juul Labs' preliminary objection and ordered rectification of the defendant's name. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor, and Juul Labs was not unreasonably prejudiced.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court against 'Juul Labs, Inc.' in respect of five European patents. The actual registered proprietor of the patents was Juul Labs International, Inc., which filed a preliminary objection arguing the actions were improperly directed. The Court of First Instance rejected the objection and ordered rectification of the defendant's name. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor, and Juul Labs International was not unreasonably prejudiced. The Court also held that no order for costs would be made in this non-final appellate decision.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions against 'Juul Labs, Inc.' before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The actual registered proprietor of the patents at issue was Juul Labs International, Inc., which filed a preliminary objection arguing the actions were inadmissible. The Court of First Instance allowed rectification of the defendant's name, and Juul Labs International, Inc. appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that the revocation actions were intended to be directed against the registered proprietor.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Curio Bioscience's application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to confidential information to certain persons during appeal proceedings. The court rejected the application as superfluous, holding that the Local Division Düsseldorf's final confidentiality order of March 11, 2024, which was not appealed, already extended to the appeal proceedings and adequately protected the information in question.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning procedural matters in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 611 989. The Court of Appeal set aside the Rapporteur's order rejecting as inadmissible the defendants' request for panel review of a R.20.2 RoP notification, holding that the Rapporteur should have submitted the review request to the panel for decision under R.333.4 RoP. The matter was remanded to the panel of the Local Division Munich.
Abbott Laboratories and Others v.DexCom, Inc
The appellants, a group of Abbott entities, filed an appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP contesting the €50,000 penalty ceiling set by the Paris Local Division's confidentiality order in a patent infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. After learning that the Court of First Instance had not granted leave to appeal, the appellants withdrew the appeal. The President of the Court of Appeal held that without leave to appeal, the appeal was inadmissible from the outset and could not be withdrawn, and accordingly rejected it as inadmissible.
Abbott Laboratories and Others v.DexCom, Inc (UPC_CoA_5/2024)
The Abbott entities appealed a confidentiality order issued by the Paris Local Division in patent infringement proceedings brought by DexCom, contesting the €50,000 penalty ceiling as too low and seeking to raise it to €250,000. The President of the Court of Appeal held that under Rule 220.2 RoP, the appeal required leave from the Court of First Instance, which had not been granted, rendering the appeal inadmissible from the outset and incapable of being withdrawn.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed an appeal by Netgear concerning the deadline for filing a Statement of Defense after Huawei extended its infringement action to include a second patent (EP 3678321). The Court held that due process requires the defendant to have the same time to respond to an added patent as if a new action had been filed, and set the defense deadline to April 18, 2024, running from the date of the Local Division's confirmation order (January 18, 2024) rather than from the earlier judge-rapporteur's order.
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.President and Fellows of Harvard College and 10x Genomics, Inc.
This appeal concerned a request for provisional measures (a cease-and-desist order) by 10x Genomics and Harvard College against NanoString Technologies for alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 108 782, which relates to compositions and methods for analyte detection. The Court of First Instance (Munich Local Division) had granted the injunction, but on appeal, the Court of Appeal revoked the orders and rejected the Applicants' request, finding that the Applicants had not established the required sufficient degree of certainty regarding validity and infringement. The Applicants were ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the deadline for a defendant's response after a claim extension adding a new patent (EP 3678321) to an already pending infringement action. The Court of Appeal held that due process requires the defendant to have the same time to respond to the newly added patent as if a new action had been filed, and set aside the Court of First Instance's ruling that the response period began on December 11, 2023, instead fixing the deadline at April 18, 2024.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. and NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a corrigendum issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court on 11 March 2024, correcting Headnote 2, paragraph 3 of its earlier order dated 26 February 2024 in proceedings concerning EP 4 108 782. The underlying proceedings concern an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Chamber Munich) of 19 September 2023 in provisional measures proceedings (UPC CFI 2/2023). The corrected headnote sets out principles for the interpretation of European patent claims under Article 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on its interpretation.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on 16 December 2023, all three NanoString respondents filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on 4 February 2024. Both parties requested suspension of the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests, holding that under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, proceedings need not be suspended under Rule 311.1 of the Rules of Procedure when a party is declared insolvent only after the close of oral hearings and the case is ready for decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal. AIM Sport Development AG appealed a decision of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Helsinki) that dismissed its actions due to the UPC's lack of competence over European patent EP 3 295 663 owing to its opt-out. The Court of Appeal identified that AIM had lodged its appeal within two months of service, but the applicable time period under R.224.1(b) RoP for appeals against orders under Art. 60 and Art. 62 UPCA was 15 days, and invited both parties to comment on the non-compliance and its consequences.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's request for acceleration of appeal proceedings under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed an order of the Local Division Munich that separated the claim based on EP 3678321 from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1. The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening of time limits, finding that granting it would not adequately consider Huawei's interest in adequate preparation time and would violate principles of proportionality, fairness, and equity.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's application for acceleration of appeal proceedings and shortening of time limits under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed a decision of the Local Division Munich that allowed Huawei to extend its infringement claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening the time limit for filing the response to the appeal, finding that granting the request would prejudice Huawei's right to adequate preparation time and would conflict with principles of proportionality, fairness, and due process.
Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the appeal fee in a dispute over European Patent EP 3 763 331 (a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses). The Court of Appeal determined that Meril, as appellants, must pay an appeal fee of €11,000 by analogy to the fee for an appeal under Rule 220.1(c) RoP regarding provisional measures under Article 62 EPCA, since the fee table contains no specific provision for an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP against a costs order issued under Rule 360 RoP.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Respondent
Unified Patent Court decision.
Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns an application by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. for suspensive effect of their appeal against a costs order of the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the appellants' interest in avoiding further costs from cost decision proceedings did not outweigh the respondent's interest in a quick decision on costs, and that the impugned order was not clearly erroneous.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Germany GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This case concerns a request for discretionary review before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the admissibility of an appeal against an order by a judge rapporteur. The judge rapporteur had refused to refer his earlier decision (that the Applicants' preliminary objection would be dealt with in the main proceedings) to the panel for review under Rule 333.1 RoP. The standing judge allowed the discretionary review request, permitting the applicants to appeal the 11 December 2023 order, and referred the case to the President of the Court of Appeal for assignment to a panel.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore AS [et al.], Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP
Unified Patent Court decision.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the Appellants' (OPPO and OROPE) request for expedition of appeal proceedings. The Appellants had sought a shortened deadline for the Respondent's (Panasonic) Statement of response in connection with their appeal against an order rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court held that granting the request would unfairly prejudice the Respondent's right to prepare its response, outweighing the Appellants' interest in filing their Statement of defence in English before the 22 December 2023 deadline.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the Appellants' (OPPO and OROPE) request for expedition of appeal proceedings and shortening of the time period for the Respondent to lodge a Statement of response. The Appellants had appealed an order of the Court of First Instance rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings from German to English, and sought an expedited decision before 22 December 2023, the deadline for filing their Statement of defence in the main proceedings.
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.