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.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Centripetal Limited's appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's revocation of a Saisie Order that had granted Centripetal's application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. in connection with European patent EP 3 821 580. The Court held that Centripetal's amended requests submitted on appeal, which sought to broaden the scope of the original Saisie Order, were inadmissible because they were filed for the first time on appeal without justification and seriously prejudiced Palo Alto's ability to defend itself.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC filed an infringement action against Samsung entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947, titled 'Verifiable device assisted service policy implementation,' alleging that Samsung's mobile devices running Android 7 or higher infringed claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and/or 35. Samsung contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, also seeking to challenge the patent's validity on grounds including added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court held an oral hearing on 20 May 2025 and announced its decision on 1 August 2025, with the outcome indicating the patent was not found valid as granted or as amended.
Acer Computer GmbH v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Acer Computer GmbH applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated application-to-amend proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892 B1. The court granted access, finding that Acer had a specific interest due to a related infringement action and that the general principle of public access applies even when proceedings have ended without a decision. The court rejected Nokia's argument that Acer should be restricted from distributing the documents, holding that confidentiality conditions apply only to pending proceedings.
Acer Computer GmbH v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Acer Computer GmbH applied for public access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. Acer had a specific interest as it faced an infringement action based on the same patent. The court granted access to most documents with redaction of personal data, rejected access to certain exhibits, granted Nokia leave to appeal, and suspended the order's effects pending appeal.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order concerns an application by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, a German law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from a terminated revocation action (UPC_CFI_181/2024) involving patent EP2661892. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court granted access to most requested documents with personal data redacted, applying the Court of Appeal's Ocado v Autostore principles, but rejected access to two specific exhibits. The court also granted leave to appeal and suspended the effects of the order pending any appeal.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, a firm of UPC representatives, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for public access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024) concerning EP2661892, a revocation action between HP and Nokia that ended by withdrawal. Nokia opposed the request, arguing the applicant lacked a sufficient specific interest and should not be permitted to distribute the file contents. The Court of First Instance granted access with personal data redacted, finding that the general principle of public access applies once proceedings have ended, and also granted Nokia leave to appeal.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy and Others
Procedural order from the UPC Local Division Helsinki in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3295663. AIM Sport Development AG sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to amend its Statement of Claims and under Rule 305 RoP to add a new defendant, TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited. The Court granted the application, allowing the amendments and the addition of the new defendant, while giving the existing defendants three months from the date of the order to lodge their Statement of Defence.
Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the confirmation of an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices. The Court of Appeal rejected Mammut's appeal, finding that Ortovox had not engaged in unreasonable delay in seeking interim measures and that the requirements for provisional relief were met. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and to pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices (LVS-Geräte). Ortovox had obtained an ex parte interim injunction against Mammut before the Local Division Düsseldorf, which was confirmed on review. Mammut appealed the confirmation, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Mammut had waited too long before seeking review and that the interim measures were justified. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appeal filed by AYLO entities against an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim rejecting their objections to jurisdiction. The court held that the UPC has international jurisdiction for an infringement action when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and the alleged damage may occur in that state, including via internet-based services accessible in that territory. The court also confirmed that the list of objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure is exhaustive and does not extend to arguments such as abusive conduct or manifest lack of merit.
VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, and Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 883 277, which relates to electronic labels for displaying information in retail spaces. The appellant (VusionGroup SA, formerly SES-imagotag SA) sought interim measures against various Hanshow entities, alleging infringement of the patent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused products (various Nebular and Stellar Pro models) fell within the scope of claim 1 of the patent, particularly because it did not demonstrate that the antenna was positioned further toward the front face of the electronic label than the printed circuit board.
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.