Brinkman
50 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
50 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement and nullity counterclaim proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 215 288 (metal sintering preparation). The court addressed multiple requests including the review of a prior rejection of an amendment to add indirect infringement of a process claim, and requests by both parties to extend the proceedings to Romania following its accession to the UPC Agreement on September 1, 2024. The court granted the extensions to Romania for both the infringement claim and the nullity counterclaim, revised its prior order on indirect infringement, and established a new briefing schedule.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to radio communication devices and methods essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a revocation counterclaim and a FRAND counterclaim seeking court-determined license terms. The Local Chamber Mannheim found partial infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim and the FRAND counterclaim, and ordered the defendants to bear the costs.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants in microbial fuel cells, to be valid and infringed by equivalence by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court applied a four-question test for assessing infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringement, recall infringing products, provide information, publish a corrective notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for non-compliance.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) ruled that European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants, is valid and infringed by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court found infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringing activities, provide information, publish a recall notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for any further infringement.
Maars Holding B.V. and Others v.City Glass and Glazing Private Limited
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Maars entities) applied for an order requiring the claimant (City Glass and Glazing Private Limited) to provide security for legal costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) granted the application in part, ordering City Glass to provide security of EUR 19,000 by deposit on the UPC account by 29 January 2025, while dismissing the request for leave for interim appeal.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning confidentiality measures in infringement actions related to European Patent No. 3 215 288. The defendant Vibrantz sought to classify certain recipe/formulation information regarding sintering pastes as confidential and restrict access to a limited number of persons. The court granted secrecy protection but allowed access to the five named natural persons requested by the Heraeus plaintiffs, finding that the defendant had unnecessarily disclosed the exact recipe details in its submissions.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 198 245 B1 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP requiring Orbisk B.V. to produce documents in infringement proceedings. The Judge-Rapporteur found a prima facie case of infringement but held that the request was too broad in certain respects. The court partially granted the request, ordering Orbisk to produce specific technical specification documents regarding categorisation of disposal events and detection/correction of erroneous weights, while protecting confidentiality interests.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 198 245 B1 concerning a system and method for monitoring food waste, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP requiring Orbisk B.V. to produce documents related to its allegedly infringing Orbi food waste monitoring system. The Local Division The Hague partially granted the request, finding a prima facie case of infringement but limiting the order to specific technical specification documents regarding categorisation of disposal events and detection/correction of erroneous weights.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order concerns Dexcom's request to amend its counter claim for revocation in proceedings involving EP 4 070 727 B1. After Abbott withdrew part of its infringement claim regarding the Dexcom G7-System with a G7-Receiver, Dexcom sought to add a declaration of non-infringement for that product combination. The Judge-Rapporteur granted leave to amend, finding Dexcom could not reasonably have filed the amendment earlier, and allowed Abbott 30 days to respond.
Dexcom International Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of the Court of First Instance in The Hague concerning a counter claim for revocation related to European Patent EP 4 070 727 B1. Dexcom sought leave to amend their counter claim to add a declaration of non-infringement regarding the Dexcom G7-System used with the G7-Receiver, following Abbott's withdrawal of that portion of its infringement claim. The Judge-Rapporteur granted leave to amend, finding Dexcom could not reasonably have filed the amendment earlier, and allowed Abbott 30 days to respond.
Amycel LLC v.[Defendant]
Amycel LLC, owner of European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 directed to a hybrid Agaricus bisporus mushroom strain BR06 (sold as 'Heirloom'), sought provisional measures against a Polish mushroom farmer selling a competing brown mushroom strain called 'Cayene'. The Local Division The Hague found that mushroom strains are not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC, that the patent was valid and infringed, and granted the requested provisional measures including an injunction, delivery-up order, customer disclosure, and penalty payments, subject to Amycel providing EUR 200,000 in security.
Spyra v.Amycel LLC (Procedural Order on R. 109 RoP)
A procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning a request by the Defendant, Szymon Spyra, for simultaneous interpretation between English and Polish during an oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings. The court rejected the request for court-arranged interpretation under R. 109.1 RoP (whose costs would become costs of the proceedings) but allowed the Defendant to engage an interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against 15 HP entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, which relates to video decoding devices for HEVC files. Following the defendants' request to summon NVIDIA Corporation as a third party, the plaintiff sought leave to limit its claims to exclude devices where the claimed video decoding means are implemented by graphics cards sold by NVIDIA or its affiliated companies. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the limitation as an unconditional restriction under R. 263.3 RoP, finding it was not merely a clarification but a permissible narrowing of the claim.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
Huawei sued NETGEAR entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei asserted is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought a production order against itself to introduce a Wi-Fi patent portfolio license agreement with Amazon (dated 5 March 2024) into the proceedings, together with confidentiality protection for its contents. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the provisional production and confidentiality orders and additionally allowed the use of the license agreement and its confidential information in a related parallel proceeding concerning EP 3 678 321.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Huawei sued Netgear entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which is essential for the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Netgear raised an exhaustion defense based on a Qualcomm chip in some accused embodiments and sought production of Huawei's August 2020 license agreement with Qualcomm. The Local Chamber Munich ordered Huawei to produce the agreement with confidentiality protections and a daily coercive fine of up to €20,000, while rejecting the remaining requests of both parties.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding European Patent EP 2 568 724, deciding to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3)(a) UPCA to combine these proceedings for reasons of efficiency and procedural economy.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) UPCA, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND license. The early decision was justified by efficiency considerations and the court's nascent operational situation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, in which Panasonic Holdings Corporation (plaintiff) brought an infringement action against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (defendants). The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 RoP in conjunction with Art. 33(3) UPCA, to jointly hear the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim rather than bifurcating the proceedings.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2137782. The defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the court had to decide whether to hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly or to bifurcate. Both parties requested a joint hearing, and the court ordered that it would proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (relating to a metal sintering preparation). The court addressed multiple procedural applications, including a review of a prior refusal to allow amendment for indirect infringement of a process claim, and requests by both parties to extend the proceedings to Romania following its accession to the UPC Agreement on September 1, 2024. The court granted the amendments, revised its prior order, set a new briefing schedule, increased the dispute value to €1.25 million each, and allowed appeal.
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.