364 cases · page 8 of 13
Showing 211–239Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a European Patent Attorney who is a party to proceedings can represent himself, and whether a board chairman can represent a company. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they themselves are parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position cannot represent the legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical 14 days to appoint authorized representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Hamburg Local Division that had denied Daedalus Prime LLC's two US attorneys access to confidential information disclosed by Xiaomi in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 792 100. The Court held that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require the person granted access to be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA, and that the US attorneys' technical expertise and familiarity with the patent justified granting them full access. The orders of the judge-rapporteur of 30 July 2024 and 3 September 2024 were amended to extend access to the two US attorneys.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Court of First Instance's decision declaring inadmissible Suinno's R. 262A RoP application for confidentiality, on the ground that Suinno's representative, who was also its managing director and main shareholder, could not be considered independent under Art. 48(5) UPCA. The Court of Appeal held that no corporate representative or natural person holding extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal person may serve as that legal person's representative before the UPC, regardless of whether they are otherwise qualified as a UPC representative.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 831 282. DexCom had initiated infringement proceedings against the Abbott companies before the Paris Local Division, which were met by a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. On appeal, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and the Abbott companies withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to closure of the proceedings.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 435 866. DexCom appealed a decision of the Paris Local Division that had revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. Following the appeal, both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, and the Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal court fees to DexCom.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
DexCom, Inc. appealed a decision of the Munich Local Division that revoked EP 3 797 685 entirely and dismissed all infringement claims brought against the Abbott companies. Following the appeal, DexCom applied to withdraw the infringement action, and the Abbott companies consented and applied to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% refund of appeal court fees to DexCom.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja sought, and Dyson agreed to, either a suspension of the cost assessment proceedings or alternatively an extension of the deadline to file a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction and ordering Dyson to pay SharkNinja's costs. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests as inadmissible, holding that the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP to file a cost assessment application begins with service of the substantive decision in the main proceedings, not with service of an order on interim measures.
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. and Amazon EU S.à r.l. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Amazon's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidential treatment of certain information in its appeal brief. The Court of Appeal rejected Amazon's application, holding that the information sought to be protected was already covered by an existing protective order issued by the Local Division Munich on December 19, 2024, which continued to apply during the appeal proceedings. The Court further found that Amazon's application was insufficiently specific regarding any information not already covered by the existing protective order.
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l., Amazon EU S.à r.l. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Amazon's request under Rule 262.2 RoP to classify certain information as confidential in its appeal against a Munich Local Division order. The court granted the request to classify specific information as confidential and exclude it from third-party file access, provisionally ordered the parties and their representatives to maintain confidentiality, and set a potential penalty of up to €250,000 per violation.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
Bhagat Textile Engineers appealed a decision of the Milan Local Division finding it had infringed Oerlikon's EP 2 145 848 patent and filed a separate application under Rule 223 RoP seeking suspensive effect of the appeal. Bhagat argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to parallel revocation proceedings involving a third party (Himson Engineering) and considerable doubts about the patent's validity. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that Bhagat had failed to evidence any exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court overturned a decision by the Local Division Hamburg which had held that the UPC lacked jurisdiction to quantify damages following a final national infringement judgment. The court ruled that the UPC has jurisdiction for a standalone claim for determination of damages after a national court has established patent infringement and the infringer's obligation to pay damages, and that this jurisdiction extends to infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the European patent was still in force at that time.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns the admission of withdrawal of the infringement action and revocation counterclaims, as well as the reimbursement of court fees, in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 1 612 910. Following a first instance decision by the Local Chamber Hamburg that partially found infringement and partially invalidated the patent, Avago appealed and subsequently sought to withdraw its infringement action, while Tesla sought to withdraw its revocation counterclaims. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawals, declared the appeal proceedings terminated, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Avago.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of claims in proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 612 910. Following a first instance decision by the Local Division Hamburg that partially revoked the patent and dismissed the infringement claim, both parties sought to withdraw their respective claims. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawals, declared the appeal proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to Avago.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a judge-rapporteur could issue an order on security for costs under R. 158 RoP and decide on leave to appeal. The court held that while a judge-rapporteur is competent to issue an order on security for costs, such an order is a case management order subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP, and only the panel—not the judge-rapporteur—can decide on leave to appeal. The impugned order of the Mannheim Local Division was revoked and the case referred back to the same panel.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 602. Magna appealed the injunction, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, with no cost decision needed.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604. Magna appealed the order, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was needed.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against orders granting Powell Gilbert LLP, a member of the public, access to written pleadings and evidence from proceedings concerning provisional measures involving patents EP 2 713 879 and EP 3 831 283. The court held that the general public interest in accessing pleadings and evidence arises after a first-instance decision or order concluding the proceedings is rendered, regardless of whether an appeal is pending, whether the order concerns provisional measures, whether parallel proceedings exist, or whether the decision addresses all arguments and evidence. The court found Powell Gilbert's request to be reasoned and concluded that the balance of interests favored allowing access.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding confidentiality requests in proceedings related to European Patent EP 4 201 327. Menarini sought to extend confidentiality protections over certain technical information in its Statement of Response to the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's requests for confidentiality (Requests I–III) as superfluous, holding that the existing non-appealed confidentiality order from the Court of First Instance continued to apply to the appeal proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's request to extend the deadline for filing its Statement of response, holding that the request was superfluous because Rule 301.2 RoP provides for an automatic extension of time periods when the court cannot receive electronic documents. The court found that the deadline was automatically extended until the next working day after the Case Management System issue was resolved on 30 December 2024.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of their appeal. The appeal had been filed precautionarily against an order of the Local Division Mannheim requiring them to provide €800,000 in security for Aylo's procedural costs. The Court granted the alternative request, ordering reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees, but rejected the request for full reimbursement.
MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters) - Application to Intervene in Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Others
MediaTek Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against Xiaomi. The confidential information at issue related to the architecture of MediaTek's processors. The Court of Appeal allowed MediaTek's application to intervene in support of Xiaomi, finding that MediaTek had a direct and present legal interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its processor architecture information.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning a request by Syngenta to be relieved from translating Exhibit FF25 (filed in German) attached to its Statement of response in appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. Sumi Agro, the appellant, left the matter to the discretion of the Court. The judge-rapporteur held that no translation of Exhibit FF25 was necessary.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Microsoft Corporation filed an application before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court seeking protection of confidential information under Rule 262 RoP regarding Exhibit BP 01, a settlement offer document. The court granted the application, ruling that while the document was already known to Suinno and did not require restriction of access between the parties under Rule 262A RoP, its original confidential version should not be available to the public due to the confidential nature of certain information contained therein.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a Court of First Instance order that granted Suinno leave to reduce its damages claim in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that Suinno's application constituted an unconditional limitation of its claim under Rule 263.3 RoP, which must always be granted, and that Microsoft's interests and right of defence were sufficiently protected.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' appeal against the dismissal of its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 for a C5-binding antibody (eculizumab) used to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. The court held that the patent's claim 2 could not be corrected by interpretation to remove 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus of SEQ ID NO:4, as the existence of the error and the precise correction were not sufficiently certain to the person skilled in the art. Consequently, the court found it more likely than not that claim 2 was insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC, and ordered Alexion to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 B1 relating to the antibody eculizumab for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, sought provisional measures against Amgen, which markets BEKEMV®, a biosimilar of Soliris®. The Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) dismissed Alexion's application, and Alexion appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the patent's SEQ ID NO:4 sequence must be interpreted as including 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus, and that Alexion had failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the skilled person would correct this as an error, rendering the patent claim more likely than not insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning the admission of new evidence in proceedings related to provisional measures ordered by the Local Division Munich regarding patent EP 2 152 073. The Court of Appeal disregarded Sumi Agro's Exhibit SA17 (an excerpt from a book already partially submitted in first instance) and Syngenta's conditional counter-exhibits FF28-29, but admitted Syngenta's Exhibits FF24-27 relating to the purchase and analysis of a potentially different version of the contested Kagura product (Kagura 2024).
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Curio Bioscience filed an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP seeking to stay an order from the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide EUR 200,000 in security for legal costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Curio had not established the extreme urgency required under Rule 223.4 RoP, as it had merely claimed it would be forced to comply with a manifestly wrong order or face a default judgment.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna against a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had exempted Magna's supply obligations for five BMW models but omitted the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé (F74) from the exemption list. The Court of Appeal found that Magna had clearly identified the 2 Series Gran Coupé in its submissions and that the CFI should have included it in the exemption, ordering the injunction's effect suspended as to that model until the appeal is decided.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 866 051. Hand Held Products requested simultaneous interpretation from German to English for an oral hearing scheduled for January 9, 2025. The Court rejected both the main request for court-ordered interpretation and the alternative request for interpretation at the applicant's cost, but noted that Hand Held Products could privately arrange interpretation at its own expense under Rule 109.4.
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.