Eric Augarde
11 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
11 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises related to network security technology. Centripetal Limited, the patent holder, appealed a rejection of its Saisie Order against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. The court ultimately rejected the appeal, finding that Centripetal had failed to meet procedural requirements regarding the defense and amendment of the original order. This case highlights the strict procedural standards required when seeking interim measures like evidence preservation within the UPC framework.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC initiated an infringement action against Samsung Electronics concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947, which relates to verifiable device-assisted service policy implementation for data saving. Headwater alleges that various Samsung mobile devices running Android 7 or higher infringe the patent claims. Samsung has countered with a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent based on grounds including lack of inventive step and novelty. The case is currently in procedural stages before the UPC Local Division Munich.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U.
This procedural order addressed an application for public access to the register concerning a closed UPC case (UPC_CFI_181/2024). The Court granted Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB access to specific redacted documents, affirming the general principle that proceedings are open to the public after termination. However, recognizing the need for consistent jurisprudence on confidentiality obligations post-access, the court also granted leave to appeal and suspended the order's effects.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U.
This procedural order addressed an application by a UPC representative firm seeking public access to the file of a concluded revocation action. The Court balanced the general interest in transparency and professional advice against confidentiality concerns, ultimately granting broad access while redacting personal data. The decision highlights the nuanced application of public access rules (R. 262.1(b) RoP) even after proceedings have been terminated by agreement.
HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order addressed an applicant's request for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in a terminated revocation action (EP2661892). The Court of First Instance granted redacted access to most documents, finding that the general interest in transparency outweighed concerns about proceeding integrity after termination. However, the court rejected access to specific exhibits containing non-technical information, emphasizing that file inspection must be limited to technical explanations regarding interpretation and validity.
HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order addressed an applicant's request for public access to confidential written pleadings and evidence in a UPC revocation action. The court affirmed the general principle that proceedings are open to the public, even after termination without a final judgment, provided there is no overriding interest in confidentiality. While granting access to redacted documents, the judge also granted leave to appeal due to the need to establish consistent jurisprudence regarding post-termination file confidentiality.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy, TGI Sport Virtual Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL (and potentially TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited)
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted AIM Sport Development AG leave to significantly amend its infringement action against the Supponor group. The amendments included adding a new defendant (TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited) and extending the scope of the claims to cover joint infringing acts in Spain. The court reasoned that these changes were necessary to prevent conflicting judgments, thereby promoting procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters related to an infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox concerning a snow avalanche transceiver (LVS) device protected by EP 3 466 498. The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals regarding interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's decision, but Mammut was ordered to cover additional provisional costs incurred by Ortovox during the appellate process.
Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters within a patent infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox regarding an LVS device (EP 3 466 498). The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals concerning interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. While the core dispute was about patent validity/infringement, the ruling ultimately dismissed Mammut's appeal and ordered them to cover additional provisional costs.
AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This UPC appeal decision addresses complex issues of international jurisdiction in patent infringement cases involving internet-based services. The court provided a clear interpretation of how Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation applies to digital infringement, stating that potential damage can arise from accessing services within the member state where the patent is effective. This ruling provides significant guidance for practitioners dealing with cross-border streaming and software patents.
VusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
VusionGroup SA appealed a decision rejecting its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology regarding EP 3883277, which covers electronic price labels. The UPC Board of Appeal found that the products manufactured by Hanshow did not meet all the technical requirements defined in the patent claims. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the initial rejection and holding VusionGroup liable for legal costs.
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.