Litigation Decisions
364 cases | Page 13 of 13
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and 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 their appeal against a Court of First Instance order rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court held that granting the request would give the Respondent only four working days to respond, insufficiently accounting for the Respondent's interests and the principles of proportionality, fairness, and equity.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore companies
Unified Patent Court decision.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Third Party
Unified Patent Court decision.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the date of service of a Statement of claim and the extension of procedural deadlines. The appellants (Sanofi entities and Regeneron) challenged a procedural order of the Munich Local Division that had rejected their request to recalculate the deadlines for lodging a Preliminary objection and Statement of defense based on the later availability of Annexes. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that while a Statement of claim without Annexes can be validly served under Rule 271 RoP, non-compliance with Rule 13.2 RoP (requiring simultaneous upload of Annexes) constitutes a reasoned request for extension of the terms under Rules 19.1 and 23 RoP.
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.