Emmanuel Goug
38 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
38 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Amazon.com, Inc. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the rules surrounding the use of private transcripts derived from oral hearing recordings. The court ruled that while a full transcript is not automatically provided by the UPC, parties can obtain one with professional assistance if specific conditions are met. These conditions include clearly labeling the document as non-authoritative and ensuring compliance with all confidentiality and data protection mandates.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This appeal court ruling addresses a procedural dispute regarding the jurisdiction for determining litigation costs following an initial judgment and subsequent appeals. Rematec sought to have its costs application referred back to the Local Division (GEI) based on prior rulings, but the Appeal Court denied this request. The court clarified that cost determination always originates at the GEI under the Rules of Procedure, regardless of whether the application follows a decision from the Appeal Court. This reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC litigation.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involved multiple appeals concerning infringement and international jurisdiction related to a juice extractor patent. The court addressed complex procedural issues regarding how parties establish their choice of forum under Brussels Ia Regulation, while also reviewing the merits of the claims. Ultimately, the appeal decisions were partially set aside, confirming certain jurisdictional limitations but maintaining the financial value of the dispute at €675,000.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for applications seeking suspensive effect. The court emphasized that parties must present their full case upfront, meaning subsequent applications based on similar arguments are inadmissible. This ruling reinforces the principle of judicial efficiency and timely disclosure in complex patent litigation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding the determination of FRAND license terms in essential patent litigation. Vivo challenged the Paris Local Division's ruling that deferred the FRAND claim to the main proceedings, arguing it lacked UPC competence. The CoA affirmed this deferral, establishing that the FRAND determination is intrinsically linked to and dependent upon the finding of infringement, thus making it a matter for the main court to decide.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application for further written pleadings during an ongoing infringement appeal. The claimant, Hurom, sought additional time to respond to new arguments and prior art documents introduced by the respondents (NUC). The court ultimately rejected this request, prioritizing the principle of efficient conduct and the upcoming oral hearing. This ruling reinforces the strict procedural timelines within the UPC's written phase.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This UPC appellate decision involved a complex interplay between patent infringement and revocation proceedings. Although the respondent successfully argued for the invalidity of EP 2 548 648, leading to the dismissal of the infringement claim, the court still awarded the claimant a lump-sum damages payment of €20,000. The ruling also provided important procedural guidance on when an appellate court must render a final judgment in both revocation and infringement cases following an appeal.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH S.A; ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A; ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD; BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE appealed a decision from the UPC Central Division (Paris) concerning an infringement action against various Robert Bosch entities regarding patent EP 2671766. The appeal challenges the jurisdiction and procedural language set by the initial division. This Order of Procedure confirms that the Court of Appeal will first assess the admissibility of VALEO's appeal before examining its merits, a standard procedure for managing complex UPC litigation. This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to appellate procedures within the Unified Patent Court framework.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect filed by a defendant against a preliminary injunction and interim damage award issued by the Court of First Instance. The Applicant sought to halt the enforcement of the CFI's orders, arguing that certain actions (like website publication) were irreversible and that the financial impact was severe. However, the Court rejected the request, emphasizing that an appeal must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to override the general rule against suspensive effect.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application for leave to appeal against a cost determination in a prior infringement action involving Microsoft and Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. The court upheld the CFI's award of EUR 350,000.00 in costs to Microsoft. The ruling emphasizes the strict proportionality requirements under Article 69(1) UPCA when reviewing cost assessments.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding document access in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings involving Huawei and TP-Link concerning patent EP 3 678 321. TP-Link sought access to confidential documents, which the Local Division partially granted with a deadline. Huawei appealed this order, arguing against the disclosure. The Board of Appeal ultimately granted suspensive effect to Huawei's appeal, effectively halting the document disclosure until further review.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed Windhager's request to stay the execution of a judgment issued by the Local Division in an infringement case against bellissa HAAS GmbH. Although Windhager had raised revocation defenses, the court found insufficient grounds to grant the stay. The ruling reinforces the high threshold required for obtaining a stay of execution under UPC rules, emphasizing that mere allegations of error are not enough.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against a cost award granted in favor of Microsoft Corporation. The original dispute involved an infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173, which was ultimately dismissed by default. Although the costs were substantial (€350k), the Court of Appeal ruled that Suinno failed to meet the high threshold required to suspend enforcement of the cost decision. This reinforces the principle that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are proven.
Washtower IP B.V. v.Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision is a purely procedural order granting an extension of time to the Appellants (defendants from the CFI proceedings). The Appellants requested more time to prepare their grounds of appeal due to professional constraints, including mandatory attendance at an EPO hearing. The Court granted a three-working-day extension, emphasizing the principles of due process while ensuring the Respondents' interests were secured by the enforceability of the original order.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd.
This procedural order concerns Apple's successful application to intervene in an appeal brought by Sun Patent Trust against Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd. The core dispute involved the confidentiality regime applied to highly confidential information (HCI) related to licensing agreements. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, recognizing its direct legal interest in protecting its sensitive business data from disclosure to Vivo's employees. This decision is significant for IP practitioners dealing with complex litigation involving trade secrets and commercial interests within the UPC framework.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd.
This procedural order concerns Apple Inc.'s successful application to intervene in an appeal brought by Sun Patent Trust against Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd. The core dispute involved the scope of confidentiality regarding highly confidential information (HCI) related to licensing agreements. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple, recognizing its direct legal interest in preventing the disclosure of its sensitive business data to VIVO employees. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms available for third parties whose interests are affected by ongoing litigation.
Bodycap v.Office européen des brevets (OEB)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict procedural requirements for obtaining unitary effect under the Unitary Patent Regulation (RPU). The appeal, brought by co-owners against the EPO's rejection of their request, centered on whether a late response to an invitation to correct administrative irregularities could be remedied. The court firmly ruled that the one-month deadline set out in Rule 7(3) RPU is absolute and non-negotiable. This case serves as a critical reminder for patent holders regarding the procedural rigidity when transitioning from national/European patents to unitary protection.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the scope of claim amendments under Rule 263 RoP. CeraCon GmbH sought to amend its counterclaim for revocation by introducing a new ground of invalidity based on prior art (EP’480). The court denied this request, emphasizing that parties must demonstrate reasonable diligence in their prior art searches. This ruling reinforces the strict procedural requirements governing claim amendments within UPC proceedings.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH; Keysight Technologies, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the allowance of further written pleadings in an infringement action. Centripetal Limited sought to introduce evidence concerning a newly released infringing product (AI Stack) by requesting a discretionary review of the CFI's rejection. The court ultimately denied the request, prioritizing the principle of expeditious proceedings and finding that Centripetal's delay in filing was a relevant factor. This ruling reinforces the strict application of procedural rules within the UPC framework.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Sun Patent Trust against a confidentiality order issued by the Court of First Instance. The dispute centered on restricting access to highly confidential information (HCI) within ongoing infringement proceedings involving Vivo Mobile Communication. The Court ultimately rejected the request, finding that even if HCI was disclosed, the appeal would not become devoid of purpose because it addresses both access and usage conditions for the sensitive data.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning a confidential information order issued by the Court of First Instance. Sun Patent Trust sought to halt the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to designated employees of Vivo, arguing that continued access would render its appeal pointless. The Court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose and that the claimant failed to establish a risk of irreparable harm.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for rectification filed by Microsoft following a default judgment issued against Suinno. Microsoft sought to amend the decision to include a notice (R. 356.3 RoP) warning that any subsequent default would be final. The Court rejected this application, emphasizing that the subject matter of appeal proceedings is strictly limited to what was requested by the parties. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests must be raised within the scope of the initial litigation or appeal.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addresses an appeal concerning provisional measures related to patent EP 4 249 647. The core issue was OTEC's request for further written pleadings after STEROS introduced new experimental evidence during the appellate phase. Citing principles of due process, the court allowed OTEC a limited time frame to address these newly presented facts, keeping the main appeal proceedings alive.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed OTEC's request to suspend the effect of an injunction granted by the Court of First Instance against Steros. OTEC sought suspension based on alleged manifest errors and violations of its right to be heard in the initial proceedings. The Court ultimately rejected this application, affirming that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are met. This ruling reinforces the high threshold required for parties seeking to halt enforcement measures while their appeal is pending.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a dispute over the scope of access to confidential information in ongoing infringement proceedings. Network System Technologies (NST) sought broader access for its US attorneys, arguing their technical expertise was vital. Qualcomm opposed this request, citing the need to protect sensitive data. The court ultimately sided with Qualcomm, emphasizing that access must be strictly limited and found that NST's existing team structure provided adequate representation without requiring additional attorney access.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision confirmed a settlement reached between Plant-e and Arkyne regarding the infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 137 782. While the core dispute was settled, the Court issued a significant ruling on procedural matters, specifically granting Arkyne a reimbursement of 60% of its court fees. This case highlights the practical application of UPC rules governing settlements and fee refunds.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect filed by NUC Electronics against a judgment ordering it to disclose confidential business information regarding the origin and distribution of its products. The court ruled that the disclosure obligation is necessary for effective IP enforcement under EU directives. Consequently, NUC's request to suspend the appeal was dismissed, meaning the original order compelling information disclosure remains in force.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses complex jurisdictional questions regarding the temporal scope of the UPCA Agreement, specifically concerning acts occurring before its entry into force or during a patent's opt-out period. The court affirmed that the UPC possesses competence over these historical infringement acts, provided the action is lodged while the patent is under exclusive jurisdiction. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners navigating transitional periods and opting out of the UPC system.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had initially sought revocation of EP 2 794 928 against Harvard, which was subsequently revoked by the CFI. When Harvard appealed and later withdrew the appeal, the dispute shifted to fee reimbursement under UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP). The Court ruled that because the withdrawal occurred after the written procedure closed but before the interim procedure ended, Harvard qualified for a 40% refund rather than the maximum 60%.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC appeal case involved ILME GmbH seeking to suspend the main infringement and revocation proceedings before the Local Division Munich while its preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court was being heard on appeal. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing the need for procedural efficiency and timely resolution. This decision reinforces the principle that jurisdictional challenges should be addressed within the UPC framework without unduly delaying substantive litigation.
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.