353 cases · page 7 of 12
Showing 181–209President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.
CENTRIPETAL LIMITED v.PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This is an order issued by the Court of Appeal concerning an application for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Article 60 UPCA. The order sets out general legal principles regarding the standard of proof required for such applications, the distinction between preservation of evidence proceedings and merits proceedings, and the need to balance the applicant's interest in effective enforcement against the defendant's fundamental rights. The text provided contains only the headnotes of the decision and is cut off before the full reasoning and operative part are disclosed.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.Respondent
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute. SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 643 717 relating to a color and light mixing collective optic, brought an infringement action against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH. STRABAG had installed LED variable traffic signs at certain locations (A12, VKP Kundl, RFB Innsbruck) that it had sourced from Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., which intervened in support of STRABAG. The Court of Appeal issued an order on May 26, 2025, addressing STRABAG's application for suspensive effect against the first instance decision of January 15, 2025.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against Juul Labs International Inc. regarding EP 3 504 991 before the Paris Central Division, which dismissed the action and ordered NJOY to bear the costs. NJOY appealed the cost decision, but subsequently applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP, with Juul Labs' consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH
This is an appeal order concerning a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The appellant Knaus Tabbert AG sought to stay enforcement of a first-instance order, arguing that the plaintiffs' financial situation required security for enforcement. The Court of Appeal held that the ordering of security for enforcement lies within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that a defendant must raise facts justifying such security already at first instance, so that a request for suspensive effect generally cannot rely on the plaintiff's financial situation if this could have been raised earlier.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
Chint appealed an order of the Munich Local Division requiring it to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000 by 6 June 2025, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of JingAo's European patent EP 2 787 541 relating to a solar cell. Chint requested that its appeal have suspensive effect or, alternatively, that the appeal proceedings be expedited. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that Chint had failed to demonstrate that providing security constituted an undue burden or that expedition was warranted.
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH v.Corning Incorporated
The Court of Appeal dismissed a request for discretionary review filed by Hisense, TCL, and LG against an order of the Mannheim Local Division refusing to separate infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 296 274. The defendants had sought separation to prevent the disclosure of sensitive supply chain information among competing companies, citing potential EU competition law conflicts. The Court of Appeal held that separation is not the only means to protect confidential information, as restricted access under R. 262A RoP and confidentiality agreements between parties are available alternatives.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
This appeal concerned an order for security for costs and an order on provisional measures brought by Ballinno B.V. against the Kinexon companies and UEFA in relation to EP 1 944 067. The appellant had built its case for provisional measures primarily around a major sports event, but subsequently withdrew its requests for provisional measures before the Court of First Instance issued its order, rendering the action devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was admissible and that Ballinno, having taken the inherent risk of its procedural strategy, must be considered the unsuccessful party and bear the costs under Article 69(1) UPCA.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, ***, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
An appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of proceedings. The appellant, Hybridgenerator ApS, appealed an order of the Copenhagen Local Division that declined to order the respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for failure to comply with an earlier order. With the agreement of both parties, the Court of Appeal changed the language of the appeal proceedings from Danish to English, finding that the change would shorten the timeframe for adjudication without causing disadvantage to the parties.
Meril GmbH v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R.262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case between Meril GmbH and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris order granting access, holding that access should not be granted to unrepresented members of the public, and that the Statement of response lodged by an unauthorized representative constituted a decision by default. The Court also rejected Meril GmbH's request for costs.
Meril Italy v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Central Division Paris that had granted a member of the public access to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825. The Court of Appeal held that access under R. 262.1(b) RoP should not be granted to members of the public who are not represented by an authorised representative, and dismissed the underlying application. The Court also rejected Meril Italy's request for compensation of costs.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris's order granting access, holding that access to written pleadings and evidence should not be granted to members of the public who are not properly represented. The Court also held that compensation for costs should not be awarded in relation to such applications.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation, proprietor of European patent EP 4 201 327 relating to fluid delivery devices (insulin patch pumps), sought provisional measures against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for allegedly infringing the patent with its EOPatch and GlucoMen Day Pump products. The Milan Central Division (Court of First Instance) rejected the application, finding claim 1 likely lacked novelty. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the Court of First Instance improperly delegated claim construction to an expert, and granted the provisional measures against EOFLOW across multiple UPC Contracting Member States.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.Respondent
In an appeal from a revocation action concerning EP 3 498 115, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs, with the agreement of NJOY. The stay was ordered pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where oral proceedings had been scheduled for 17 October 2025. The court found that a decision from the Boards of Appeal could be expected rapidly relative to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.Respondent
In an action for revocation, where both parties agreed to a stay, the appeal proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where the opposition proceedings could be expected to result in a final decision before or just after, in any case rapidly, in relation to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 498 115, citing its direct interest as a party to parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings against the same patent. Juul Labs and NJOY objected, arguing the request was overly broad and risked undermining confidentiality. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents already in the casefile, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts until the appeal is closed, while dismissing the remainder of the request.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading Limited's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in appeal proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 430 921, which arose from a revocation action between Juul Labs International Inc. and NJOY Netherlands B.V. The Court found Nicoventures had a direct interest as a party to related validity proceedings. Access was granted subject to a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts, such as the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the appeal is concluded.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to all written pleadings and evidence in appeal proceedings (APL_322/2025) concerning the revocation action over EP 3 504 991, in which NJOY Netherlands B.V. is the appellant and Juul Labs International, Inc. is the respondent. The Court of Appeal held that written pleadings or evidence added to the casefile before a party commented on the request can be covered by a decision granting access, but blanket requests for future documents are not admissible. Immediate access was granted based on Nicoventures' reasoned request and its status as a party to concrete legal proceedings concerning the validity of the patent at issue, subject to conditions protecting the integrity of proceedings.
Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. , Amazon.com, Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by Amazon against a decision of the Local Division Munich that had rejected Amazon's request for an unredacted version of documents and information from Nokia in a patent infringement case concerning EP 2 661 892. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of the main action, Amazon informed the Court of Appeal that the appeal had become moot. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by applying Rule 360 RoP, holding that the rule applies not only when the main claim becomes moot but also when the appeal itself becomes moot.
Scandit AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Scandit AG's request for a 20% reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of Hand Held Products' application for interim measures. The Local Division Munich had previously issued an injunction against Scandit for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10 of EP 3 866 051, which Scandit appealed. After the oral hearing, Hand Held Products withdrew its application for interim measures, and the Court of Appeal terminated the proceedings. Scandit sought partial reimbursement of court fees, arguing that the oral proceedings had not yet concluded because no final decision on the merits had been pronounced.
Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Meril's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division finding infringement of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve and delivery catheter system). The Court held that Meril failed to demonstrate that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous or that an exception to the general rule under Article 74(1) UPCA (that appeals do not have suspensive effect) was warranted. Meril's alternative request for a stay of enforcement subject to the provision of security was also rejected.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
Barco N.V. appealed an order of the Local Division Brussels dismissing its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 732 827 and ordering Barco to bear costs up to €112,000. Barco applied for suspensive effect of the appeal regarding the cost order, arguing enforcement difficulties in China and that the cost order was not a concrete payment obligation. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect as unfounded, finding no manifest error and that enforcement risks did not render the appeal devoid of purpose.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Kodak's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning EP 3 511 174. The Local Division had found infringement, ordered a permanent injunction with penalties, damages, information, destruction and recall orders, and dismissed Kodak's counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal held that Kodak failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision contained manifest errors justifying an exception to the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED,, Novartis AG, ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V.
The Court of Appeal granted STADAPHARM GmbH's application for public access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute was a declaration of non-infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 501 384, brought by Accord Healthcare entities against Novartis AG before the Milan Central Division. Following the withdrawal of the main proceedings by Accord, Novartis withdrew its objections, and the Court of Appeal reversed the Milan Local Division's earlier order dismissing Stadapharm's access request.
Ericsson GmbH, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
Ericsson withdrew its second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 and the associated appeal before the Court of Appeal, following the Local Division Munich's rejection of the counterclaim as inadmissible based on a preliminary objection by Motorola. Both parties consented to the withdrawal and agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Ericsson.
Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor SASU v.AIM Sport Development AG
This appeal concerned two orders of the Helsinki Local Division in an infringement action brought by AIM Sport Development AG against several TGI entities (formerly Supponor entities). The appellants challenged orders relating to the amendment of a claim under Rule 263 RoP and the addition of a defendant under Rule 305 RoP. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion under both rules, limiting appellate review, and clarified the procedural requirements for applications under these provisions.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted EOFlow to withdraw its application for leave to appeal against an order of the Central Division (Milan) that had dismissed EOFlow's application for a cost decision without examination of the substance. Insulet agreed to the withdrawal, and neither party sought a decision on the costs of the leave to appeal proceedings.
UPC Decision UPC-000833 v.Respondent
NJOY Netherlands B.V. appealed a decision of the Court of First Instance (Paris Central Division) dated 29 November 2024, which had dismissed its revocation action against European Patent No. 2 875 740. After filing the appeal, NJOY informed the court that it would not pay the required appeal fee and no longer wished to pursue the appeal, expressly waiving its right to be heard. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as inadmissible by default under Rule 229.4 of the Rules of Procedure.
Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A., ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns ILME's request to stay the first-instance proceedings before the Local Division Munich pending the outcome of its appeal against a jurisdictional ruling. The Court of Appeal denied the stay request, finding that considerations of efficiency and the administration of justice favored seeking a prompt decision on the jurisdiction question raised under Rule 19 RoP before the main hearing scheduled for June 17, 2025, rather than suspending the first-instance 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.