Berichterstatterin
45 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
45 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
This is an appeal concerning an application for interim measures related to alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation. ONWARD Medical N.V., the registered proprietor of the patent, sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Division Munich, which issued an order on October 17, 2025. The appeal addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the assertion of a non-registered claim version in interim proceedings, the admissibility of auxiliary requests under Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure, and the determination of intended use under Article 26 EPGÜ for indirect patent infringement.
ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH v.CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH's request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The underlying decision of March 18, 2026 had largely found that ALPINA's milk frother 'ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo' infringed European Patent EP 3 398 487, while ALPINA's counterclaim for revocation was unsuccessful. ALPINA filed its appeal on March 19, 2026, and sought suspensive effect at least until it becomes clear whether and to what extent CUP&CINO will seek enforcement in parallel proceedings concerning related European patents.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG, A. Menarini Diagnostics Frankreich SASU v.F. Hoffmann- La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This appeal concerned EP 1 962 668, a patent dispute in which F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH had obtained an order for interim measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on December 5, 2025. The Menarini entities appealed that order. Before the appeal could be heard, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Roche withdrew its request for interim measures. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure and terminated the proceedings, noting that each party would bear its own costs.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG a. O.
This provisional procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 805 415 and was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in consolidated proceedings. The defendants (Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH) filed a request to designate certain information as trade secrets or confidential information under Article 58 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. The court addressed the defendants' requests regarding the protection of confidential information and the restriction of access to specific individuals.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The court held that security for costs can only be ordered against the applicant (the party initiating the proceedings), not in their favor. In appeal proceedings, only the respondent on appeal may request security for costs, as the appellant is the party who initiates the appeal. The case involves an appeal by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd against a first instance decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf finding patent infringement of EP 2 778 423.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
The Court of Appeal addressed whether to admit the withdrawal of an appeal by the defendant-appellant Strabag following an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiff Swarco, and whether the separate appeal filed by the intervener Chainzone (which supported Strabag) became moot as a result. The Court held that the withdrawal of Strabag's appeal was admissible and that Chainzone's appeal became moot under Rule 360 RoP, because the intervener cannot maintain an independent position contradicting the supported party. The Court further ruled that Chainzone should generally be treated like Strabag regarding costs.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spolka z o.o.
Brita SE, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1 relating to water filter devices with locking cartridges, filed a preliminary injunction application against the Polish company Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. The defendant is part of the Fileder Group, whose German distribution subsidiary had previously been warned by Brita for alleged patent infringement and issued a cease-and-desist declaration, subsequently identifying the defendant as the supplier of the allegedly infringing water filter systems. The Local Division Hamburg issued an order on November 6, 2025, following receipt of the application on November 5, 2025.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., against expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH. The appeal concerns the assessment of added matter (unzulässige Erweiterung) under Article 123(2) EPC, particularly where the patent was derived from an international application not filed in an official EPO language. The Court of Appeal addressed key legal questions regarding the role of translations of international applications and the standard for assessing disclosures in earlier applications.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns appeals by Roku against the rejection of its objections (Einsprüche) by the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the grounds for objection under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure are exhaustive, whether the UPC's jurisdictional framework is compatible with EU law, whether the Administrative Committee could replace London with Milan as a Central Division location, and how court fees apply to multiple appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal upheld the rejection of Roku's objections, finding them inadmissible or unfounded.
expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The appellants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH (part of the expert retail group), appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of October 10, 2024, which had addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal standard for assessing unallowable extension of subject matter (added matter), particularly in the context of a patent derived from a divisional application.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH, Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The appellants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH (part of the expert retail group), appealed against the decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of October 10, 2024, which had addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_764/2024 and UPC_CoA_774/2024) were heard together at an oral hearing on July 11, 2025, with Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. intervening in support of Viosys.
Robert Bosch GmbH v.Grizzly Tools et. al.
Robert Bosch GmbH filed an infringement action against Grizzly Tools and three Lidl entities concerning European Patent EP 3 030 383 B1, asserting infringement in Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Poland. The defendants filed separate objections under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure challenging the court's jurisdiction over non-UPC contracting member states (Poland, Spain, and the UK). The Mannheim Local Chamber rejected the objections, holding that establishing international jurisdiction under Article 4(1) and Article 63(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation requires only demonstrating that the defendant has its seat in an EU member state of the court seized, and that under Article 71b(1) Brussels Ia, it suffices to show the seat is in one of the states establishing the common court.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order disregarding a post-hearing brief filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. following the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. The court held that under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, there is no basis for filing further pleadings after the close of written proceedings without prior court approval, and this applies even more so after the oral hearing when the case is ready for decision. The court further held that there is no need to respond in writing to the court's introduction after the oral hearing, as any such response should have been made during the hearing itself.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning three European patents (EP 3 398 487, EP 3 281 569, and EP 3 610 762) in a dispute between CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (plaintiff) and ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH (defendant). The court addressed the question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the UPC Agreement regarding the handling of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. With the agreement of both parties, the chamber ordered that both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim be heard jointly, citing procedural efficiency and the moderate complexity of the technical subject matter.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.Respondent
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application for confidentiality in a patent infringement dispute over EP 2 643 717. The Court of Appeal addressed whether Chainzone, as intervener supporting Strabag, could obtain restrictions on the use and disclosure of Fraunhofer measurement reports that had already been submitted to the Court of First Instance without any prior confidentiality request. The Court held that an application under R. 262A RoP restricting access to or use of information and evidence must be made at the time of filing the document, and a first-time request in appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted at first instance is inadmissible.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal, dated June 17, 2025, addresses an objection (Gegenvorstellung) filed by Knaus Tabbert AG against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute concerns alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The Court of Appeal held that an objection that merely challenges the reasoning expressed in the rejecting order, without raising new substantive grounds, is inadmissible.
Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This case concerned an appeal and cross-appeal against an order of the Local Division Munich dated December 17, 2024, regarding coercive fines imposed on Belkin for non-compliance with an information obligation under Article 67(1) EPGÜ. The Court of Appeal addressed five key legal questions relating to the setting of deadlines for providing information, the imposition of coercive fines even after belated compliance, the burden of proof regarding compliance, the scope of required disclosures (including manufacturer prices), and the permissible form of the information. The Court issued five guiding principles clarifying the procedural framework for enforcing information orders and the conditions for imposing coercive fines.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute. SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 643 717 relating to a color and light mixing collective optic, brought an infringement action against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH. STRABAG had installed LED variable traffic signs at certain locations (A12, VKP Kundl, RFB Innsbruck) that it had sourced from Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., which intervened in support of STRABAG. The Court of Appeal issued an order on May 26, 2025, addressing STRABAG's application for suspensive effect against the first instance decision of January 15, 2025.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH
This is an appeal order concerning a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The appellant Knaus Tabbert AG sought to stay enforcement of a first-instance order, arguing that the plaintiffs' financial situation required security for enforcement. The Court of Appeal held that the ordering of security for enforcement lies within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that a defendant must raise facts justifying such security already at first instance, so that a request for suspensive effect generally cannot rely on the plaintiff's financial situation if this could have been raised earlier.
STÄUBLI TEC-SYSTEMS GMBH v.Respondents
This appeal concerned the allocation of costs in a revocation action before the Unified Patent Court after the former patent proprietors waived the patent in suit (EP 3 170 639). Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH had filed a revocation action against the patent proprietors, who subsequently waived the patent. The Court of Appeal addressed whether an exception to the general 'loser pays' rule under Article 69(1) EPGÜ applies when a patent proprietor waives the patent at the outset of revocation proceedings without having provoked the action.
SharkNinja Europe Limited, SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by SharkNinja to suspend the cost assessment proceedings or, alternatively, to extend the time limit for filing a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction against SharkNinja and ordering Dyson to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding when the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 of the Rules of Procedure begins to run and the applicability of Rules 150 and 151 when no main proceedings under Rule 213 are initiated.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEl GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the court over a standalone action for the quantification of damages following a national court judgment establishing patent infringement and liability for damages. The appellant, Fives ECL, sought to quantify damages of EUR 6.5 million against REEL GmbH based on a prior judgment of the Landgericht Düsseldorf finding REEL liable for infringing EP 1 740 740. The Court of Appeal overturned the Local Division Hamburg's decision and held that the court has jurisdiction over such standalone damages quantification actions, including for infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the patent was still in force at that time.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC,
The Court of Appeal addressed an application by DISH Technologies and Sling TV for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of their appeal. The appeal had been filed precautionarily against an order of the Local Division Mannheim requiring them to post €800,000 in security for Aylo's costs. The Court of Appeal granted the alternative request, ordering reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees (€900) under R.370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure, but rejected the request for full reimbursement.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_22/2023) involving European Patent EP4108782, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, against Vizgen, Inc. The dispute centers on Plaintiff Harvard's third request to amend the patent, filed on October 25, 2024, which was rejected by the Rapporteur's order of November 8, 2024. The Local Chamber Hamburg reviewed the order under Rule 333.1 RoP and confirmed the rejection, holding that approximately three months between the alleged reason for the amendment and the filing of the request was too long under Rule 30.2 RoP.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 3 764 271. The plaintiff Hand Held Products, Inc. filed suit on November 6, 2024, alleging infringement by the defendant Scandit AG, which is based in Switzerland. The order resolves a discrepancy between the actual date of service (November 20, 2024) and the date automatically recorded in the Case Management System (November 23, 2024), which was based on an inapplicable service fiction under Rule 271.6 of the Rules of Procedure.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal order concerning an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 2 043 492, which covers a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a specific handle arrangement. Dyson Technology Limited, as the patent proprietor, sought interim measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal reviewed the first instance decision and, after balancing the probabilities, concluded that it was not more likely than not that the patent was being infringed. The appeal order thus turned on the assessment of the likelihood of patent infringement in the context of interim relief.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.,
The Court of Appeal issued an order concerning Belkin's application for suspensive effect (stay) of a first instance order dated September 13, 2024, in a patent infringement action brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. regarding EP 2 867 997. The appeal involved both the Belkin corporate entities and individual managing directors. The court addressed the requirements for applications for suspensive effect, the standard for granting such effect, and the question of whether managing directors of an infringing company can be held liable as intermediaries under Article 63 EPGÜ.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College, v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is an order from the Local Division Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4108782 held by President and Fellows of Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen, Inc. filed a request under Rule 333.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking review by the full panel of the reporting judge's order of August 15, 2024, which had rejected Vizgen's requests for production of documents. The disputed documents relate to non-technical objections, specifically allegations of abuse of rights (Rechtsmissbrauch), and were originally produced in US parallel proceedings.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an application by SharkNinja to admit new evidence (FBD 29) consisting of two annexes to a brief filed by Dyson's representative in a parallel US proceeding. SharkNinja argued the evidence was relevant to the appeal because it contained Dyson's interpretation of the patent feature regarding an elongate handle, which could undermine Dyson's contradictory denial of disclosure of the 'Power Source' feature in the present proceedings. Dyson opposed the application, arguing the evidence was not decisive and that the submission was culpably delayed.
CAN Srl Airxcel Europe v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendant, CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, to extend the deadlines for filing a preliminary objection and a statement of defense/counterclaim in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. The defendant argued that service of the statement of claim at a trade fair was ineffective. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected both extension requests, holding that the strict time regime of the Rules of Procedure permits extensions only in exceptional cases, and the defendant failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstances.
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.