Emmanuel Goug
38 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
38 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a procedural motion regarding deadlines in an appeal case involving ILME and Phoenix Contact, concerning patent EP 3 646 825. The court was asked to grant a three-week extension for one party's reply brief. Ultimately, the court granted only a minimal three-day extension, emphasizing the need for efficient proceedings while maintaining procedural balance.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Bhagat Textile Engineers against Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG. The core issue was whether exceptional circumstances existed to halt the enforcement of a prior infringement judgment and associated penalties. The court ruled against Bhagat, emphasizing that merely claiming parallel proceedings or 'considerable doubts' is insufficient. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC appeals.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a case concerning an infringement action, Microsoft challenged the Court of First Instance's decision that allowed Suinno to reduce its claimed damages. Microsoft argued this change compromised its defense and exceeded procedural limits. However, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Microsoft’s discretionary review request, affirming that allowing a party to unconditionally limit their claim is a standard procedure under the Rules of Procedure (R 263.3 RoP). This decision reinforces the flexibility and fairness built into the UPC's litigation framework regarding claim amendments.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural ruling concerning the protection of confidential information, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Microsoft's request to keep certain details within Exhibit BP 01 private. This decision reinforces the court's ability to manage sensitive commercial data during litigation. The ruling clarifies the distinction between confidentiality for parties involved in the dispute and restrictions against public disclosure.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application by Curio Bioscience to grant suspensive effect to a prior Court of First Instance order requiring them to provide security for legal costs. The court ruled against Curio, emphasizing that the burden lies squarely on the applicant to prove 'extreme urgency' under Rule 223 RoP. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements for obtaining temporary relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when challenging interim measures.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This UPC case involved a procedural application by Scandit AG requesting the court to mandate simultaneous interpretation for its upcoming oral hearing, switching from German to English. The Berichterstatter ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that since Scandit had filed its initial pleadings in German, it bore the responsibility of managing language requirements. Practitioners should note that courts are reluctant to impose mandatory translation services if a party has already chosen or could have chosen the procedural language.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Scandit AG seeking permission to submit a reply brief in an ongoing infringement appeal against Hand Held Products, Inc. The court ultimately denied the request, reinforcing strict adherence to the rules governing written submissions in the appellate phase. The ruling underscores the importance of 'front-loaded' arguments and efficiency in UPC proceedings, preventing parties from introducing new substantive points late in the process.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Microsoft Corporation to review an order dismissing its application that Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action was manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued the lack of independence of Suinno’s representative made the case clearly bound to fail under R. 361 RoP. The Court ultimately dismissed Microsoft's request, emphasizing that 'manifest inadmissibility' requires a clear-cut situation and should not be used for general disputes over legal interpretation.
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.