Litigation Decisions
364 cases | Page 7 of 13
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Scandit AG's application for a 20% refund of court fees following the withdrawal of Hand Held Products' request for preliminary measures. The court held that the withdrawal, filed after the oral hearing had already taken place on January 9, 2025, did not qualify for the 20% refund under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, because the oral proceedings had already been concluded with the end of the oral hearing.
Meril GmbH and 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. and 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.
Stadapharm applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from a declaration of non-infringement proceeding between Accord and Novartis concerning EP 2 501 384. The Milan Local Division initially dismissed the request because the main proceedings were still pending and Stadapharm had not demonstrated sufficient interest. After Accord withdrew the main proceedings and Novartis withdrew its objection, the Court of Appeal reversed the impugned order and granted Stadapharm access to the statement of claim and exhibits TW01 to TW36, subject to redaction of personal data in accordance with EU Regulation 2016/679.
Ericsson GmbH and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
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.
TGI Sport Suomi Oy (formerly Supponor Oy), TGI Sport Virtual Limited (formerly Supponor Limited), Supponor SASU, TGI Sport Italia S.r.l. (formerly Supponor Italia S.r.l.), and Supponor España SL v.AIM Sport Development AG
This appeal concerned orders of the Helsinki Local Division granting AIM Sport Development AG leave to amend its Statement of claim under R. 263 RoP and to add TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a new defendant under R. 305 RoP in a patent infringement action. The appellants (TGI entities) challenged the orders on grounds of inadmissibility and procedural unfairness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion and that the scope of review on appeal regarding such discretionary decisions is limited.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
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.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC (EP 2 875 740)
The President of the Court of Appeal issued a decision by default rejecting an appeal as inadmissible after the appellant, NJOY Netherlands B.V., failed to pay the required court fee of 20,000 EUR within the prescribed 14-day period. The appellant had filed an appeal against the Court of First Instance's dismissal of its revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 875 740, but subsequently informed the Court that it did not wish to pursue the appeal and waived its right to be heard.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning ILME's request to stay first instance proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich pending the outcome of its appeal. ILME had appealed the Local Chamber's rejection of its R. 19 RoP objection regarding the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal rejected the stay request, finding that judicial efficiency was better served by seeking a prompt decision on the jurisdiction question rather than suspending the first instance proceedings.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a withdrawal request under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure. Hand Held Products, Inc. requested withdrawal of its request for interim measures regarding EP 3 866 051, and Scandit AG consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and declared the appeal proceedings terminated, finding no need for a cost decision since neither party filed a cost request.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft & Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an appeal filed by ILME against an order of the Local Chamber Munich that rejected ILME's objection under R. 19 RoP. Phoenix Contact, the respondent, requested a three-week extension to file its response to the appeal, citing the complexity of arguments and workload. The Court of Appeal granted only a three-day extension until April 7, 2025, emphasizing the principle of equality of arms and the need for an efficient resolution of the jurisdictional question.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.Former Patent Proprietors (EP 3 170 639)
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 at the Central Division Paris. The former patent proprietors immediately acknowledged the revocation and surrendered the patent ex tunc. The Court of First Instance ordered Stäubli to bear the costs, finding that Stäubli introduced new prior art for the first time in the revocation action without prior warning. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed Stäubli's appeal, confirming that Stäubli must bear the costs of both the first instance and appeal proceedings.
Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à r.l., Amazon.com, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Amazon's request to file an additional written submission in reply to Nokia's response to Amazon's appeal, filed just five days before the scheduled oral hearing. The court held that the written procedure before the Court of Appeal is limited to the appellant's grounds of appeal and the respondent's response, and granting Amazon a further written submission would violate the principle of equality of arms.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on March 11, 2025, granting partial reimbursement of court fees to 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College following the withdrawal of their three appeals against orders of the Hamburg Local Division concerning EP 4108782. The court ordered a 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of written proceedings, and 20% reimbursement for two appeals withdrawn before completion of oral proceedings, in accordance with Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on March 11, 2025, granting partial reimbursement of court fees to 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College following the withdrawal of their three appeals against orders of the Hamburg Local Division concerning EP 4108782. The court applied Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, awarding 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of written proceedings and 20% for two appeals withdrawn before completion of oral proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding applications for reimbursement of court fees in three appeal proceedings concerning EP 4108782. After allowing withdrawal of the appeals, the court granted 10x's requests for partial reimbursement of court fees based on Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, awarding 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of the written procedure and 20% for two appeals withdrawn before completion of the oral procedure.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This order concerns the withdrawal of three appeals filed by 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College against orders of the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning the production of documents in infringement proceedings against Vizgen, Inc. relating to EP 4108782. The appellants applied for withdrawal of the appeals with the respondent's consent, and neither party sought a cost decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered the decision to be entered in the register.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 4108782, in which 10x Genomics and Harvard College (appellants) sought to withdraw their appeals against three orders of the Local Division Hamburg that had partially granted Vizgen's requests for production of documents under R. 190.1 RoP. Vizgen consented to the withdrawal, and neither party sought a cost decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered the decision to be entered in the register.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
10x Genomics and Harvard College (collectively '10x') appealed three orders of the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court that had partially granted Vizgen's requests for production of documents under R. 190.1 RoP in infringement proceedings concerning EP 4108782. Before a decision on the appeals, 10x requested withdrawal of all three appeals, and Vizgen consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and noted that no cost decision was needed since both parties waived cost claims.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal concerned provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 152 073 relating to herbicidal compositions. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the Munich Local Division's order finding that Sumi Agro's 'Kagura' herbicide more likely than not infringed the patent, while adding Romania to the territorial scope and reversing the cost decision to order Sumi Agro to bear Syngenta's costs.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal. Curio Bioscience, Inc. had appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide security for legal costs of EUR 200,000 in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. in connection with a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 697 391. Curio subsequently applied to withdraw its appeal, and 10x did not object, leading the Court of Appeal to permit the withdrawal and close the proceedings.
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Biolitec, an Austrian medical technology company and proprietor of European patent EP 3 685 783, sought provisional measures against the Lightguide companies for alleged infringement relating to their 'Infinity Side Fiber' product. The Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) dismissed the application, and Biolitec appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Biolitec failed to demonstrate that provisional measures were necessary and that proceedings on the merits could not be awaited.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V. v.VusionGroup SA
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning court fees and procedural requirements for an appeal against a cost decision under Rule 221 RoP. VusionGroup SA sought a default decision alleging non-payment of an additional court fee by the Hanshow companies, and also sought dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible for lack of a separate notice of appeal and statement of grounds. The Court of Appeal rejected both applications, finding that the additional fee had been timely paid and that the application for leave to appeal itself constituted the notice of appeal and statement of grounds under Rule 221.2 RoP.
Aarke AB v.Sodastream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding it had infringed EP 1 793 917 and granting an injunction. Before the appeal was decided, Aarke applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP and sought reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision was necessary since Sodastream filed no comments or cost requests, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Aarke.
Network System Technologies LLC v.AUDI AG
This case concerns an application by Network System Technologies LLC (NTS) for the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions against AUDI AG. The Court of Appeal had previously ordered NST to provide security for costs totaling EUR 500,000 across three proceedings. After NTS withdrew the infringement actions and the Munich Local Division closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full release and return of the deposited security amounts.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG (Application for Release of Security)
Network System Technologies LLC (NST) applied to the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court for the release of security deposits it had previously been ordered to provide to Volkswagen AG in connection with infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. After NST withdrew its infringement actions before the Munich Local Division, which closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full return of the deposited amounts (totaling EUR 500,000) to NST.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appealed a decision by the UPC Local Division The Hague that denied its request for a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. (collectively "Sibionics") for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose monitoring device. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order, finding that the patent claims did not contain added matter, and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sibionics from infringing the patent with its GS1 CGM product, along with information and delivery-up orders.
Meril GmbH v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned whether a European Patent Attorney who is also a party to proceedings must be represented by an independent representative under Rule 8.1 RoP. 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 (such as Chair of the Board) cannot represent a legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB 14 days to appoint authorised representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned whether a European Patent Attorney who is himself a party to proceedings can represent himself, and whether he can represent a company where he serves as Chair of the Board. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they are themselves parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position cannot represent a legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical 14 days to appoint authorised representatives.
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.