Berichterstatterin
54 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
54 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Others
Nera Innovations Ltd. appealed a decision of the Local Chamber Hamburg rejecting its request to serve the complaint on two Chinese Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Germany. After filing the appeal, Nera sought partial withdrawal of the appeal against the two European Xiaomi entities (Netherlands and Germany), seeking to continue the appeal only against the Chinese entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the partial withdrawal, holding that Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE had a legitimate interest in remaining in the appeal proceedings since they had already been served and had filed responses.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.Patent Proprietors of EP 3 170 639 B1
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. In response to prior art documents first submitted with the nullity complaint, the patent proprietors acknowledged the nullity claim and surrendered the patent in full. Both parties declared the main proceedings moot under Rule 360 RoP. The court held that it is generally unfair to impose costs on a patent proprietor who immediately surrenders the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity action, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs while granting a 60% refund of court fees.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) that had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The appeal concerned proceedings in which 10x Genomics sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience regarding EP 2 697 391. The Court of Appeal held that the lower court's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of fairness under Article 49(5) EPGÜ and ordered English as the language of proceedings.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Curio Bioscience's application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to confidential information to certain persons during appeal proceedings. The court rejected the application as superfluous, holding that the Local Division Düsseldorf's final confidentiality order of March 11, 2024, which was not appealed, already extended to the appeal proceedings and adequately protected the information in question.
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.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This case before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerned a patent infringement action regarding EP4108782. The defendant Vizgen sought review under Rule 333.1 of an order by the presiding judge that had partially rejected its requests for production of documents disclosed in parallel US proceedings. The full panel granted most of the production requests, ordering the plaintiffs to disclose specific emails, an FAQ document, and a deposition transcript, while treating them as confidential information accessible only to legal counsel.
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.