Giorgio Checcacci
7 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
7 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and others (Astronergy group)
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich found that Chint New Energy Technology Co. and its affiliates infringed the patent EP 2 787 541 concerning advanced solar cell technology. The court granted an injunction requiring the defendants to cease sales of their 'ASTRO N' series modules in key EU markets (Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands). Furthermore, the claimant was awarded interim costs, and the defendant's counterclaim for patent revocation was dismissed.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC Cost Decision addressed the reimbursement claims filed by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against Tandem Diabetes Care entities following a revocation action. The court firmly rejected the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings based on a pending appeal, emphasizing that such appeals cannot unduly delay the successful party's right to prompt financial settlement. Ultimately, the court determined the final costs at EUR 117,741.62 after carefully adjusting travel expenses while validating representation fees within the applicable ceiling.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In this cost determination case, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH for reimbursement of legal costs against Tandem Diabetes Care. The court firmly rejected the respondents' attempt to stay the proceedings based merely on a pending appeal on the merits, reinforcing the principle that successful parties should not be unduly delayed in receiving cost awards. After reviewing and adjusting various expense claims, including travel costs, the Court ultimately granted the requested compensation of EUR 117,741.62.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a critical procedural issue regarding the synchronization of proceedings between the Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Office. The claimant successfully sought permission to amend its infringement claims, incorporating changes made during EPO opposition proceedings and introducing a newly discovered infringing product. The court emphasized that true synchronization requires the ability to translate EPO amendments into actionable claim versions within the UPC action, setting important procedural boundaries for patent litigation practitioners.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In this revocation action, Tandem Diabetes Care challenged the validity of a patent covering an ambulatory drug infusion system held by Roche. The claimants argued that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step based on various prior art documents. However, the UPC Central Division dismissed the revocation action, ruling that the combination of cited prior art was insufficient to invalidate the patent. This decision reinforces the high bar required for challenging established patents in the UPC.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In a significant preliminary order, the UPC Local Division Hamburg rejected the request by Tandem Diabetes Care to stay an infringement action concerning its t:slim X2 insulin pump. The court emphasized the efficiency of the UPC system, stating that it is appropriate for the local division to hear both the infringement claim and the pending revocation actions simultaneously. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural delays should not impede the pursuit of patent rights when a joint hearing can ensure a uniform legal outcome.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In a preliminary objection hearing, the UPC Central Division addressed arguments concerning whether a standstill agreement could prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The court ruled decisively that violating such an agreement does not equate to a lack of jurisdiction. This ruling clarifies the scope of contractual limitations on judicial proceedings within the UPC framework, emphasizing that procedural agreements cannot override the fundamental ability of the court to hear the case.
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.