Berichterstatterin Ingeborg Simonsson
14 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
14 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ordered Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd to provide security for costs of EUR 75,000 in each of two appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_622/2025 and UPC_CoA_623/2025) brought against Grundfos Holding A/S. The court held that under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ, only the respondent to an appeal (Berufungsbeklagter) is entitled to request security for costs, and that the risk of enforcement difficulties in China justified the order.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns the consequences of the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (STRABAG) on the appeal lodged by its intervener (Chainzone) in a patent infringement case. The court held that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws its appeal following an out-of-court settlement, rendering the intervener's appeal moot. Chainzone's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to bear its own costs.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.
This case concerns the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (Strabag) following an out-of-court settlement with the opposing party (Swarco) in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 2 643 717, and the consequences for the appeal independently filed by the intervener (Chainzone). The Court of Appeal admitted the withdrawal of Strabag's appeal and declared Chainzone's separate appeal moot under R. 360 of the Rules of Procedure, holding that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws from the proceedings.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected appeals by Roku against orders of the Local Division Munich that had dismissed Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. The court held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under the UPCA does not infringe the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
Roku appealed orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected its objections to the court's jurisdiction in three infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust concerning three European patents. The Court of Appeal held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Articles 71a et seq. Brussels Ia Regulation and Article 32 UPCA does not interfere with the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts under Articles 19 TEU and 267 TFEU, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Article 87(2) UPCA to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division. All appeals were dismissed.
Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Roku's appeals against orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. The court upheld the admissibility of objections based on lack of jurisdiction under R. 19.1(a) RoP, confirmed the UPC's international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71a ff. Brussels Ia Regulation, and held that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Art. 87(2) UPCA (applied analogously) to replace London with Milan as a section of the Central Division following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (Confidentiality Order)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 1, 2025, concerning requests for confidentiality and access/use restrictions in an appeal arising from a patent infringement action. The court partially granted the confidentiality requests of STRABAG and its intervener Chainzone, classifying certain information and annexes as confidential trade secrets under Art. 58 EPCA, while rejecting certain requests as inadmissible because they were first raised in the appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted in first instance.
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.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated July 11, 2024, concerning Apple's request to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the deadline for Ona Patents SL to file its response to the appeal. The court rejected Apple's acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in expediting the proceedings did not outweigh Ona's interests in a proper proceeding. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action by Ona against Apple based on EP 2 263 098, and Apple's prior request to change the procedural language from German to English, which had been rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed an appeal by Netgear concerning the deadline for filing a Statement of Defense after Huawei extended its infringement action to include a second patent (EP 3678321). The Court held that due process requires the defendant to have the same time to respond to an added patent as if a new action had been filed, and set the defense deadline to April 18, 2024, running from the date of the Local Division's confirmation order (January 18, 2024) rather than from the earlier judge-rapporteur's order.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the deadline for a defendant's response after a claim extension adding a new patent (EP 3678321) to an already pending infringement action. The Court of Appeal held that due process requires the defendant to have the same time to respond to the newly added patent as if a new action had been filed, and set aside the Court of First Instance's ruling that the response period began on December 11, 2023, instead fixing the deadline at April 18, 2024.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's request for acceleration of appeal proceedings under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed an order of the Local Division Munich that separated the claim based on EP 3678321 from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1. The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening of time limits, finding that granting it would not adequately consider Huawei's interest in adequate preparation time and would violate principles of proportionality, fairness, and equity.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's application for acceleration of appeal proceedings and shortening of time limits under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed a decision of the Local Division Munich that allowed Huawei to extend its infringement claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening the time limit for filing the response to the appeal, finding that granting the request would prejudice Huawei's right to adequate preparation time and would conflict with principles of proportionality, fairness, and due process.
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.