in Klepsch
6 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
6 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc.
Nera Innovations Ltd. brought an infringement suit against various Xiaomi entities regarding its patent on wireless power receivers used in smartphones. The defendants counter-sued seeking revocation of the patent. While the court dismissed the revocation counterclaim, it found that the claimant was responsible for bearing the costs associated with the infringement lawsuit. This decision highlights the UPC's detailed scrutiny of procedural matters, such as the scope of auxiliary claims and the definition of prior art.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning costs determination in UPC case UPC_CFI_58/2024, Lionra Technologies Ltd. successfully petitioned for restoration of its previous status after missing a deadline under Rule 151 VerfO. The court accepted the argument that the oversight was an organizational error within the claimant's legal team, which fell outside the party's control. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural deadlines, especially those related to costs procedures, can be restored if the failure is attributable to circumstances beyond the party's reasonable influence.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement and revocation action against CUPOWER for allegedly infringing its Boost-PFC circuit patent (EP 2 011 218 B1) used in LED drivers. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision underscores the high bar required to prove infringement or successfully challenge a granted European patent within the unified system.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. sued Cisco Systems for infringing its European patent EP2201740, which covers methods for fast packet processing in wireless networks aimed at reducing latency. The case also involved a counterclaim by the defendants challenging the validity of the patent. The UPC Local Chamber ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim. This decision underscores the importance of comprehensive patent interpretation under Article 69 EPC when assessing complex networking technologies.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung), the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf decided to consolidate the proceedings between Grundfos Holding A/S and Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court ruled that it would jointly examine both the infringement claim brought by Grundfos and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu. This decision aims to enhance procedural efficiency, ensuring a unified legal interpretation across both claims.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH a.o.
This UPC decision between Avago Technologies and Tesla addresses critical procedural aspects of a complex infringement and revocation case concerning power control systems used in vehicles. The court clarified that initial delays due to CMS workflow usage are acceptable, providing flexibility early in the proceedings. Crucially, it affirmed the principle of partial revocation under Article 65(3) EPC, meaning claims can be invalidated selectively rather than requiring total patent destruction.
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.