Emmanuel Goug
38 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
38 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Amazon.com, Inc. and Others v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the lower court's order that had refused Amazon's request to produce a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional transcriber. The Court held that under Rule 115 RoP, a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing with the assistance of support staff such as a stenographer working in the presence and under supervision of the party or its representative. The Court further held that such private transcripts may be used in related proceedings outside the UPC, provided specific conditions regarding clear labeling and compliance with confidentiality orders are met.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a cost determination application filed by Rematec following its successful appeal in a patent infringement and revocation dispute involving EP 2 548 648. The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine costs and that such applications must be filed with the Court of First Instance, even when they relate to costs of appeal proceedings. Rematec's request to refer the cost determination application to the Local Division Mannheim, while preserving the original filing date, was rejected.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_409/2025); NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Three consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 028 981, a patent for a juice extractor owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. The appeals challenged decisions of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (Korea), and WARMCOOK's 'AUTO10' slow juicers. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of international jurisdiction under Article 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, particularly regarding Turkey (a non-UPC contracting EPC member state), and held that mere access to the case file does not constitute entering an appearance.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declared a second application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) inadmissible. The Applicant, who was the defendant in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350, had already filed a first application for suspensive effect that was rejected on 16 January 2026. The second application, filed on 20 February 2026, raised arguments identical or very similar to those in the first application, and the court held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the new submissions could not reasonably have been made in the previous application.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by Vivo against orders of the Paris Local Division that had rejected Vivo's preliminary objections challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over FRAND-related claims. The court held that the Paris LD properly exercised its discretion in deferring the admissibility decision on the FRAND determination claim to the main proceedings, and that the panel (rather than only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make such a deferral decision.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning Hurom's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for a further exchange of written pleadings in an appeal against a decision of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Hurom's infringement claims and revoked parts of EP 3 155 936. The court held the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that Hurom had waited two months after the Statement of Response and that the parties would have sufficient opportunity to address each other's positions at the oral hearing scheduled for 2 April 2026.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
Appeal from the Local Chamber Mannheim's decision invalidating European Patent EP 2 548 648 (relating to a mill for comminuting grinding material) and dismissing the infringement action. The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance, upheld the validity of the patent in its granted form, found direct and indirect infringement by Europe Forestry's 'Europe Grinders'/'Europe Chip Mills' products, and granted remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, information, and damages.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS and Others
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an appeal by Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage against an order of the Central Division (Paris section). The Paris CD had granted a preliminary objection filed by four Bosch entities, transferring the infringement action concerning EP 2671766 to the Düsseldorf local division and setting English as the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal's judge-rapporteur raised the question of the admissibility of Valeo's appeal and invited the Bosch respondents to submit comments within seven days on this issue.
Applicant *** v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application for suspensive effect filed by the Applicant (defendant in the underlying infringement action) against a decision by default of The Hague Local Division finding it liable for infringement of EP 1 993 350. The Applicant sought to suspend enforcement of parts of the default decision requiring it to send registered letters to customers, publish a notice on its website, and pay EUR 50,000 in interim damages. The Court held that the Applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it did not demonstrate that the decision was manifestly erroneous or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Amycel's interest in enforcement.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno applied for leave to appeal a cost decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, which had ordered Suinno to pay EUR 350,000 in costs to Microsoft following Microsoft's successful infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. Suinno sought to reduce the awarded costs to EUR 137,815.80. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, holding that the awarded costs were proportionate and within the applicable ceiling, and that the judge-rapporteur had conducted a thorough and detailed assessment.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for inspection of files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link sought access to redacted pleadings from infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321, arguing a legitimate interest as Huawei was suing them for infringement of the same patent. The Local Chamber Munich partially granted TP-Link's request, prompting Huawei to appeal and seek suspensive effect to prevent disclosure before the appeal could be decided.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Windhager's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Mannheim, which had largely upheld bellissa's infringement claim regarding EP 2 223 589 and dismissed Windhager's revocation counterclaim. The court found that Windhager failed to demonstrate that the first instance decision contained obvious errors or that its interest in staying enforcement outweighed bellissa's interest in preventing patent infringement. The pending new revocation action before the Central Chamber Milan was deemed irrelevant at this stage.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno sought suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP to prevent enforcement of a cost decision (R. 151 RoP) issued by the Central Division (Paris Seat) ordering it to pay €350,000.00 in costs to Microsoft following a default judgment dismissing Suinno's infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal held that while the application was admissible, Suinno failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it had not shown the cost decision was manifestly erroneous. The application for suspensive effect was rejected.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH & Others v.Washtower IP B.V. & Washtower B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) dated 11 September 2025, relating to European Patent EP 3 522 755. The appellants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, citing professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. The Court of Appeal granted a limited extension of three working days, extending the deadline from 26 September 2025 to 1 October 2025.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on 23 September 2025 admitting Apple Inc. as an intervener in appeal proceedings concerning the confidentiality regime for highly confidential information (HCI). The appeals arose from Sun Patent Trust's infringement actions against Vivo, where the Paris Local Division had permitted three Vivo employees to access HCI. The Court held that Apple had a legal interest in the outcome because the HCI included information on agreements between Apple and Sun Patent, and that the potential revocation of the impugned orders could prevent further access and use of such information.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
This procedural order concerns Apple Inc.'s application to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. Sun Patent Trust had appealed orders of the Paris Local Division that permitted three Vivo employees to access highly confidential information (HCI), including agreements between Sun Patent Trust and Apple. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple's intervention, finding that Apple had a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of the appeals as a party to the agreements containing the confidential information at issue.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Rennes v.European Patent Office
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by the co-owners of EP 3 691 518 against the rejection of their request for unitary effect. The court confirmed that the one-month non-extendable deadline under Rule 7(3) of the Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection (RPU) for remedying irregularities is mandatory and excluded from restitutio in integrum under Rule 22(6) RPU. The court also held that interlocutory revision by the EPO under Rule 91 RoP is excluded for expedited actions under Rule 97 RoP.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review of an order refusing leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413. CeraCon sought to introduce a new novelty attack based on EP'480, but the Court of Appeal found that CeraCon failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance was manifestly wrong in concluding that the amendment could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage under Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court challenging the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to allow a further exchange of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in an infringement action concerning EP 3 821 580. Centripetal argued the refusal was manifestly wrong because it would prevent them from addressing Keysight's newly released AI Stack software, creating a risk of res judicata. The Court of Appeal held the request was admissible but denied it, finding the lower court's exercise of discretion was not manifestly wrong given the advanced stage of proceedings and the time taken by Centripetal to bring the request.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure to prevent the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to three designated Vivo employees pending its appeal of a Paris Local Division confidentiality order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 852 468. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose or that its interests outweighed Vivo's interests in timely access to the HCI for filing submissions.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP for its appeal against a Paris Local Division order that granted three Vivo employees access to highly confidential information (HCI) in an infringement action concerning EP 3 407 524. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose if the HCI were disclosed to the designated employees, given the existing confidentiality obligations and penalty provisions in the impugned order.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft filed a request for rectification under R. 353 RoP seeking to supplement a Court of Appeal decision by default against Suinno with a notice under R. 356.3 RoP that any further decision by default would be final. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that Microsoft's request for discretionary review had not included a R. 356.3 RoP notice request, and therefore the Court was bound by the subject-matter of the proceedings as defined by the parties' requests.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for further exchange of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP. The Court granted OTEC two weeks to file further written pleadings in response to new experimental evidence and arguments introduced by STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. for the first time in its Statement of Response regarding an alleged embodiment of the patent EP 4 249 647.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division. The Court held that OTEC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, as it did not establish that the impugned order contained manifest errors or violated fundamental procedural rights.
Network Systems Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
This appeal concerned access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in three patent infringement actions brought by Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) against Qualcomm entities before the Munich Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected both NST's appeal seeking access for an additional US attorney (Peter Krusiewicz) and Qualcomm's cross-appeal seeking to revoke access even for the one US attorney (Daniel S. Stringfield) already granted access by the Munich LD. The Court held that the Munich LD's discretionary decision to grant access to only one trusted US attorney was not flawed, as NST failed to demonstrate that more than one US attorney was necessary.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. v.Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V.
Arkyne Technologies appealed a decision of the Hague Local Division that found it had infringed EP 2 137 782 and rejected its counterclaim for revocation. Before the written procedure closed, the parties reached a settlement, which the Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to Rule 365 RoP. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees paid by Arkyne, in accordance with Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP.
NUC Electronics Co., Ltd v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed NUC Electronics' application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 028 981. The Court held that NUC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, particularly given that the information disclosure order under Art. 67 UPCA is a measure necessary to ensure a high level of IP protection and is subject to use restrictions already imposed by the first instance.
XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal concerning the temporal scope of the UPC's competence under Article 32(1) UPCA. The court held that the UPC has competence to hear an infringement action concerning acts that occurred both before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and its subsequent withdrawal, and that this does not violate the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning ILME's request to stay first instance proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich pending the outcome of its appeal. ILME had appealed the Local Chamber's rejection of its R. 19 RoP objection regarding the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal rejected the stay request, finding that judicial efficiency was better served by seeking a prompt decision on the jurisdiction question rather than suspending the first instance proceedings.
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.