Berichtersta
162 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
162 cases indexed | Page 4 of 6
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.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH & SSAB Europe Oy
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an application for provisional measures filed by Tiroler Rohre GmbH regarding EP 2 839 083 against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy. After the oral hearing where the court indicated concerns about granting the order, the applicant withdrew the application. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the applicant to bear all procedural costs including the costs of the protective letter filed by the defendants.
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.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Freesites Ltd, Brockwell Group LLC, Bridgemaze Group LLC and others
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected the plaintiffs' (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) applications for production orders requiring defendants to disclose source code of media players used under Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Safari browsers in connection with their streaming services. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient need for the requested source code, as the Microsoft Edge source code was publicly accessible and the plaintiffs could obtain it themselves, while for Safari they should rely on Charles Proxy recordings.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring certain defendants to provide information about the design and encoding scheme of video files accessible through their streaming services. The court rejected the application, finding that the requests constituted impermissible fishing expeditions, that the plaintiffs had not exhausted all reasonably available information sources, and that the current state of the proceedings regarding patent interpretation, infringement, and validity did not justify burdening the defendants with such an information order.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, Brockwell Group LLC, Bridgemaze Group LLC and others
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking information from defendants regarding which Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) they use for their streaming services, the locations of CDN servers, and how video files are encoded on those servers. The court held that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their own investigative possibilities and that the current stage of proceedings regarding patent interpretation, infringement, and validity did not justify burdening the defendants with the requested information order.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. The defendant, CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, requested extensions of the preliminary objection deadline and the deadline for filing a statement of defense and counterclaim. The court rejected both requests, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying an extension under the strict time regime of the Rules of Procedure.
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.
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.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The defendants (Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH) sought leave to file further written observations by October 28, 2024, in response to the Court of Appeal's order of September 25, 2024 in case UPC_CoA_182/2024. The presiding judge rejected the application, finding that the Court of Appeal's order provided no basis for allowing further pleadings in the main proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against Optoma entities before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534. Before the defendants' deadline to respond or file a counterclaim for revocation, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement. The defendants consented to the withdrawal and the plaintiff's cost proposals, and the court issued an order terminating the proceedings.
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.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected the plaintiff's application to examine its own party expert as a witness in the oral hearing concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff sought the examination after the close of the interim proceedings, arguing that the deadline for its reply on the FRAND counterclaim was insufficient to address the opposing party's expert opinion. The court held that the application was procedurally improper and that the named person was not to be examined as a witness but rather to present expert opinions, which is not permissible under the Rules of Procedure.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court on September 16, 2024, in case UPC_CFI_210/2023 concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, sets out preparations for the oral hearing, including scheduling, hearing structure, participation logistics, language arrangements, and the value in dispute. The value in dispute was set at over 50 million euros, taking into account the defendants' FRAND counterclaim and the plaintiff's related applications.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court decided, pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by Grundfos Holding A/S and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. jointly before the same panel.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH et al.
This case concerns a review under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. The defendants (multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies) sought review of the reporting judge's order that only partially extended their deadline to file a rejoinder (Duplik) to the plaintiff's reply (Replik) on non-technical (FRAND) aspects. The court rejected the defendants' application, holding that the granted extension was adequate and that the full two-month period does not automatically restart from the date access to unredacted confidential information is granted.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought a preliminary injunction from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 197 316 B1, which relates to an oral cleaning system with motivation feedback for electric toothbrushes. Despite having previously issued a cease and desist declaration, the respondent was found to be exhibiting the infringing 'Oclean' toothbrush models at IFA 2024 in Berlin. The court granted the preliminary measures, ordering the respondent to cease offering and distributing the infringing products, imposing penalties of up to 250,000 EUR per violation, and requiring handover of infringing products at the trade fair.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought interim injunctive relief against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of European Patent EP 3 197 316 B1, which covers an oral cleaning system (electric toothbrush) providing motivational feedback to users. After Yunding had previously given a cease and desist declaration acknowledging infringement but was found still exhibiting the infringing 'Oclean' toothbrushes at IFA 2024 in Berlin, the Local Chamber Hamburg granted the interim measures, ordering Yunding to cease offering, selling, importing, and possessing the infringing products across UPC member states, with penalties of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics SARL v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Advanced Bionics against the rejection of its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action concerning EP 4 074 373. The court held that the President of the Court of First Instance correctly refused the language change, given that the parties are based in countries where German is an official language, and that a change at this advanced stage of the proceedings would create practical difficulties.
Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
Anordnung
AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appeal filed by AYLO entities against an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim rejecting their objections to jurisdiction. The court held that the UPC has international jurisdiction for an infringement action when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and the alleged damage may occur in that state, including via internet-based services accessible in that territory. The court also confirmed that the list of objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure is exhaustive and does not extend to arguments such as abusive conduct or manifest lack of merit.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 263 098. The Apple entities appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellants' further submission filed on August 15, 2024, because the Rule 36 application seeking leave to file additional pleadings was submitted after the interim proceedings had already been closed on August 13, 2024.
In re Request by DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o. for Access to Case Files (SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH)
DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o., a competitor of the claimant SWARCO Futurit, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure to the pleadings and evidence in an ongoing patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717. The Local Chamber Vienna denied the request, holding that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings and the protection of personal data outweighed DMV's asserted information interest, as DMV failed to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest justifying access.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning European Patent EP 3 339 920 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, confirmed the parties' cost agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against several Xiaomi entities, including Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. (based in China), and Xiaomi H.K. Limited (based in Hong Kong). Panasonic sought to serve these Asian Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, a sister company within the same corporate group. The Court of Appeal dismissed Panasonic's appeal, holding that a defendant company in China or Hong Kong cannot be served through a group company in a contracting member state without further justification, and that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention must generally be made before alternative service methods can be employed.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected as inadmissible an application by 10x Genomics and Harvard College for re-examination of proceedings (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens) under R.245 RoP. The application sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's earlier decision overturning a preliminary injunction in favor of 10x regarding EP 4108782. The court held that the phrase indicating assessment by a technically qualified court did not constitute use of personal judicial opinion as evidence, and that the cost order in the interim proceedings had a proper legal basis under R.242.1 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.