Emmanuel Goug
38 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
38 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft & Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an appeal filed by ILME against an order of the Local Chamber Munich that rejected ILME's objection under R. 19 RoP. Phoenix Contact, the respondent, requested a three-week extension to file its response to the appeal, citing the complexity of arguments and workload. The Court of Appeal granted only a three-day extension until April 7, 2025, emphasizing the principle of equality of arms and the need for an efficient resolution of the jurisdictional question.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
Bhagat Textile Engineers appealed a decision of the Milan Local Division finding it had infringed Oerlikon's EP 2 145 848 patent and filed a separate application under Rule 223 RoP seeking suspensive effect of the appeal. Bhagat argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to parallel revocation proceedings involving a third party (Himson Engineering) and considerable doubts about the patent's validity. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that Bhagat had failed to evidence any exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Microsoft Corporation filed an application before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court seeking protection of confidential information under Rule 262 RoP regarding Exhibit BP 01, a settlement offer document. The court granted the application, ruling that while the document was already known to Suinno and did not require restriction of access between the parties under Rule 262A RoP, its original confidential version should not be available to the public due to the confidential nature of certain information contained therein.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a Court of First Instance order that granted Suinno leave to reduce its damages claim in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that Suinno's application constituted an unconditional limitation of its claim under Rule 263.3 RoP, which must always be granted, and that Microsoft's interests and right of defence were sufficiently protected.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Curio Bioscience filed an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP seeking to stay an order from the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide EUR 200,000 in security for legal costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Curio had not established the extreme urgency required under Rule 223.4 RoP, as it had merely claimed it would be forced to comply with a manifestly wrong order or face a default judgment.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 866 051. Hand Held Products requested simultaneous interpretation from German to English for an oral hearing scheduled for January 9, 2025. The Court rejected both the main request for court-ordered interpretation and the alternative request for interpretation at the applicant's cost, but noted that Hand Held Products could privately arrange interpretation at its own expense under Rule 109.4.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by Scandit AG under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file a reply to Hand Held Products' response to the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, finding that Scandit had not sufficiently justified why a reply was necessary, and held that further prior art could not be introduced at the appeal stage without proper justification.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that refused to declare Suinno's patent infringement action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP, based on an alleged lack of independence of Suinno's representative. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that the manifest inadmissibility standard under R. 361 RoP must be reserved for clear-cut cases and that Microsoft failed to demonstrate that discretionary review was necessary, particularly since the independence issue was already the subject of a pending appeal.
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.