Christoph Norrenbrock
5 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
5 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural applications from Barco N.V., which sought leave to change its infringement claim and requested an exchange of further written pleadings against Yealink. The court denied the request for a claim amendment because it broadened the scope without sufficient justification regarding prior diligence. Furthermore, the application for more written exchanges was rejected as no new facts or evidence were introduced by the respondent. This ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements within UPC proceedings concerning claim amendments and the introduction of new arguments.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This decision addresses a critical procedural dispute regarding the protection of confidential information in UPC proceedings involving potential antitrust conflicts. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing data from disclosure to defendants. The Panel ruled that while such regimes are theoretically possible under EU law principles, the Claimant failed to meet the strict burden of proof required by the UPC for demonstrating a concrete risk of anticompetitive harm. Consequently, the application was dismissed, but leave to appeal was granted, setting up an important precedent for future cases balancing IP protection and competition concerns.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the scope of confidentiality protection in patent litigation. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' regime for sensitive licensing data, arguing it was necessary to prevent antitrust conflicts. The Panel rejected this request, emphasizing that such exceptional restrictions require a high burden of proof showing concrete risks of anticompetitive harm. Although the application for review was dismissed, leave to appeal was granted, setting up a potential precedent on balancing confidentiality and competition law within the UPC.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division case involved a complex situation where an infringement action and associated revocation counterclaims were partially withdrawn due to one defendant's insolvency. The Court allowed the withdrawal against the insolvent party (Digital River) but maintained the proceedings against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato). Crucially, the court applied principles of fairness and equity, ruling that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs related to these withdrawals, despite conflicting claims.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division decision addressed procedural matters concerning an ongoing infringement and revocation action involving Ericsson. Due to Digital River's insolvency, Ericsson sought to withdraw its claim against that defendant, which was subsequently allowed. The Court ruled on the allocation of costs for these withdrawal proceedings, finding that equity dictated both parties bear their own expenses, despite initial disagreement.
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.