Edger Brinkman
37 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
37 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
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.
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.
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.
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.