Litigation Decisions
364 cases | Page 9 of 13
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction removes the legal basis for a subsequent penalty order imposed for alleged violations of that injunction. The Court held that the setting aside of a preliminary injunction under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the injunction is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning. Consequently, the Court set aside the penalty order of €100,000 imposed on NanoString, rejected 10x's applications, ordered 10x to bear the costs, and directed the Registry to refund the amount paid by NanoString.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division Munich in favor of Dyson Technology Limited against SharkNinja. The dispute centered on European Patent EP 2 043 492, directed to a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a cyclonic separating apparatus. The Court of Appeal set aside the preliminary injunction, finding that Dyson had not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the attacked SharkNinja embodiments infringed claim 1, specifically because the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the accused products used a cyclonic separating apparatus employing centrifugal force as required by feature 1.3 of the patent.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against an unnamed Appellant who had appealed an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague concerning EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had initially declared micro-enterprise status to qualify for a reduced court fee but failed to substantiate his status as a small enterprise when ordered to do so, and did not pay the additional fees imposed. The Court denied the Appellant's requests to waive the additional fee and for legal aid, closed the appeal by default, and ordered the Appellant to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court considered Total Semiconductor's request for discretionary review of an order by the Mannheim Local Division's judge-rapporteur requiring Total Semiconductor to provide €600,000 in security for costs. The central issue was whether a judge-rapporteur has the competence to issue an order on security for costs and deny leave to appeal, or whether such an order must be adopted by a panel. The Court of Appeal allowed leave to appeal on this procedural question but expressly excluded the substantive matter of security for costs from the scope of review.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited and Others v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Court of First Instance (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) that had refused to stay infringement proceedings pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance erred by basing its refusal solely on the finding that a final EPO decision could not be expected rapidly, and referred the case back for further consideration of the stay request.
OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v.[Respondent]
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 331 036 B1 for a device treating nighttime breathing problems. The appellants (OrthoApnea and Vivisol) challenged orders of the Court of First Instance in Brussels regarding the admissibility of a new equivalence argument raised by the patent holder after filing its Statement of Claim. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal against the primary order was inadmissible, while the appeal against the reassessment order was admissible but had to be rejected, finding no abuse of discretion by the lower court.
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 before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had issued a preliminary injunction against Magna but exempted its supply obligations for five BMW models. Magna sought rectification, arguing the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was inadvertently omitted, which the Court of First Instance denied. The Standing Judge of the Court of Appeal granted Magna's renewed application for suspensive effect, suspending the impugned order's effect regarding the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model until the competent panel of the Court of Appeal decides on the matter.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
Order
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Article 83(4) UPCA regarding the withdrawal of an opt-out from the UPC's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to proceedings commenced prior to it. Consequently, the Court set aside the Court of First Instance's orders dismissing AIM's infringement action and provisional measures request, and referred the actions back to the Court of First Instance for further adjudication.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether the withdrawal of an opt-out under Article 83(4) UPCA is ineffective when national court proceedings were commenced prior to the transitional period. The Court held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to pre-existing national proceedings. Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the Court of First Instance's orders and referred the infringement action and provisional measures application back for further adjudication.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by Scandit AG under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file a reply to Hand Held Products' response to the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, finding that Scandit had not sufficiently justified why a reply was necessary, and held that further prior art could not be introduced at the appeal stage without proper justification.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc. and Others
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 concerning inductive power transmission systems. The Local Division Munich found infringement and ordered remedies against both the corporate entities and their managing directors. Belkin appealed and sought suspensive effect of the appeal. The Court of Appeal partially granted the request, ordering suspensive effect only with respect to enforcement against the individual directors, holding that a managing director of an infringing company cannot be considered a 'third party' under Article 63 EPGÜ for intermediary liability purposes.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed SharkNinja's application to introduce new evidence (FBD 29) in appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 043 492. The evidence consisted of annexes to a brief filed by Dyson's representative in US proceedings, which SharkNinja argued was relevant to show contradictory positions taken by Dyson regarding claim interpretation. The court held that SharkNinja failed to convincingly demonstrate the relevance of the new evidence and that submissions in other proceedings do not render a party's positions in the present case contradictory.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that refused to declare Suinno's patent infringement action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP, based on an alleged lack of independence of Suinno's representative. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that the manifest inadmissibility standard under R. 361 RoP must be reserved for clear-cut cases and that Microsoft failed to demonstrate that discretionary review was necessary, particularly since the independence issue was already the subject of a pending appeal.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declared an appeal inadmissible for lack of prior authorization from the Court of First Instance. Photon Wave had appealed a procedural order (ORD_41423/2024) issued by the Paris Local Division in proceedings concerning EP 3 404 726, but the Court of First Instance had merely included a general reference to Rule 220.2 RoP without expressly granting leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal held that such authorization must be expressly granted and cannot be presumed.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
EOFlow appealed an order of the Central Division Milan that denied its request to join two parallel provisional measures proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327. EOFlow additionally requested the Court of Appeal to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines so that a decision could be issued before the scheduled oral hearings in the first instance. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that EOFlow had unnecessarily delayed filing its appeal and had not sufficiently taken into account the respondent's right to file a response.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 043 492, a patent dispute between SharkNinja (appellant/defendant) and Dyson Technology Limited (respondent/claimant). The Court of Appeal rejected Dyson's application to disregard several grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja, finding them sufficiently indicated in the statement of grounds. However, the court excluded two new pieces of evidence (FBD 27 and FBD 28) submitted by SharkNinja, finding they were not convincingly shown to be relevant and were submitted with undue delay.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's request for discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that granted Microsoft's request for security for costs and declared Suinno's own request for security inadmissible. The Court of Appeal held that Suinno was required to first request the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal before seeking discretionary review, and since Suinno failed to do so, its request was inadmissible.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. & Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the allocation of costs after Meril submitted a cease and desist declaration during provisional measures proceedings brought by Edwards Lifesciences over European Patent EP 3 763 331. The Court of Appeal held that when a defendant submits a cease and desist declaration after proceedings are initiated, the plaintiff is generally the prevailing party, and dismissed Meril's appeal, ordering Meril to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure filed by Xiaomi entities against an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The dispute centered on the extension of deadlines for the defendants' rejoinder (Duplik) under Rule 29(d) RoP in three patent infringement proceedings before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Xiaomi had not sufficiently demonstrated that the Local Chamber Mannheim incorrectly interpreted the Rules of Procedure or exceeded its discretionary powers.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Volkswagen AG's request for rectification of a prior order that had directed Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in three related proceedings. Volkswagen sought to have the order rectified to include a notification under R.158.4 RoP that failure to provide security could result in a decision by default under R.355 RoP. The Court of Appeal declined rectification but issued a separate order providing the required notification to NST.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning notification pursuant to Rule 158.4 RoP in proceedings involving three European patents. Audi AG had requested rectification of a prior order that required NST to provide security for costs, seeking inclusion of a notification that failure to provide security could result in a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The Court declined to rectify the original order but provided the notification separately to NST.
Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the confirmation of an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices. The Court of Appeal rejected Mammut's appeal, finding that Ortovox had not engaged in unreasonable delay in seeking interim measures and that the requirements for provisional relief were met. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and to pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices (LVS-Geräte). Ortovox had obtained an ex parte interim injunction against Mammut before the Local Division Düsseldorf, which was confirmed on review. Mammut appealed the confirmation, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Mammut had waited too long before seeking review and that the interim measures were justified. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in SEP/FRAND litigation. OPPO and OROPE appealed the Local Division Mannheim's refusal to order Panasonic to produce various license agreements. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could change at a later stage.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Chamber Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that, at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, but left open the possibility that a different assessment could be reached at a later stage when FRAND-related issues are addressed.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under R.190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that at the current stage of the proceedings, where the question of basic licensing willingness had not yet been decided, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could differ at a later stage.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Volkswagen AG's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to dismiss infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Volkswagen had raised preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and the validity of opt-out withdrawals, and had sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP on grounds that NST lacked standing and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to defer preliminary objections to the main proceedings, and that Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and does not require a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the President of the Court of First Instance that had rejected Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 263 098. The Court of Appeal held that fairness required English to be used as the language of proceedings, given that the patent was granted in English, Apple's internal working language and technical support were in English, and Ona Patents would not face any disadvantage from a change to English.
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.