4 cases · page 1 of 1
Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., and Belkin Limited v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied Belkin's requests regarding the timing of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division in an infringement action brought by Philips concerning EP 2 867 997. The Local Division had issued a panel decision without reasons on 11 February 2026, and Belkin appealed on 13 April 2026, seeking an extension of the deadline for certain appeal requirements or, alternatively, a formal deficiency notice. The Court held that the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal had not yet begun to run because the first-instance decision lacked the required reasons.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Xiaomi Inc. and Others
Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) sought discretionary review of an order by the Munich Local Division requiring it to provide security for costs in its patent infringement action against Xiaomi entities. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a standing judge, rejected the request for discretionary review as not demonstrating manifest error, and also rejected the application for suspensive effect as having become devoid of purpose.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC and Others
Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) sought discretionary review of a Munich Local Division order requiring it to provide security for costs in its patent infringement action against Motorola Mobility entities and Lenovo. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, finding it admissible but not meritorious, as ASC failed to demonstrate that the impugned order was manifestly erroneous.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This case concerns a procedural dispute in damages proceedings before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court. Following a final 2025 decision finding that the Meril entities infringed Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 669 828, Edwards sought a deadline extension for filing its reply to Meril's defence because its UPC representative was not notified when the sub-registry changed the confidentiality status of documents. The court granted a limited two-day extension, finding Edwards' representative should have inquired with the sub-registry by 17 June 2026, but acknowledged that the CMS's lack of automatic notifications needed to be addressed.
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.