Ingeborg Simonsson
99 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
99 cases indexed | Page 1 of 4
Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi Biotechnology SAS
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Amgen had appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissing its counterclaim for revocation. After the written procedure was closed and an oral hearing was scheduled, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Amgen applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, with Sanofi and Regeneron consenting. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, but dismissed Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure, falling outside the scope of R. 370.9(b) RoP.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., and Amgen Europe B.V.
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Sanofi and Regeneron appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 13 May 2025 that dismissed their infringement action and ordered them to bear the costs. After the written procedure was closed, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, indicating the parties had reached an agreement, and sought reimbursement of 50% of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, but dismissed the request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
Ecovacs obtained an ex parte inspection order from the Local Division Düsseldorf to inspect Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin in connection with patent EP 3 808 512. Upon Roborock's request for review, the Local Division revoked the inspection order, finding that Ecovacs had breached its duty under R. 192.3 RoP by failing to disclose that Roborock itself was selling the contested products directly to German customers via Amazon. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, rejecting Ecovacs' appeal and ordering Ecovacs to bear Roborock's costs.
Gowling WLG (Applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by Gowling WLG, a law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from terminated appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) between Sumi Agro and Syngenta concerning patent EP 2 152 073. The Court held that reasoned requests for access must be directed to the relevant court instance (Court of First Instance or Court of Appeal) and must be sufficiently specified. The request was granted in part for the listed written pleadings but dismissed for exhibits (as too ambiguous) and for two application documents that did not exist in the appeal file.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Suinno's applications for rehearing of its 12 July 2025 order and decision, which had upheld a €300,000 security for costs order and entered a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft regarding EP 2 671 173. The Court held that Suinno failed to establish a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA, as its arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the Court's reasoning rather than demonstrating a defect so serious that the same decision would not have been taken without it.
Gowling WLG (Applicant) in Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, requested access under R. 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_446/2025 and 520/2025) concerning EP 1 830 843. The Court of Appeal held that reasoned requests for access must be made separately to each instance, that requests must be specified and cannot require the Court to search and select documents, and granted partial access to the written pleadings with redactions for personal data and confidential information while dismissing the request for exhibits as overly broad.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health appealed an order of the Paris Local Division rejecting its application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding European Patent EP 3 443 066, and sought suspensive effect for the associated interim award of costs of EUR 400,000. The Court of Appeal held the application for suspensive effect admissible but unfounded, finding that Guardant failed to demonstrate manifest errors or infringement of fundamental procedural rights, as the record showed both parties had requested interim reimbursement of costs of EUR 600,000. The Court rejected Sophia's request to set a payment deadline and dismissed it as inadmissible.
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.European Patent Office
Papst Licensing appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court that had upheld the European Patent Office's rejection of its request for unitary effect for European patent EP 3 327 608. The patent, derived from a divisional application of a Euro-PCT application filed in 2005, did not include Malta among its designated states because Malta acceded to the European Patent Convention only in 2007. The Court of Appeal held that Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a granted European patent that does not include the designation of one of the participating Member States, and accordingly rejected the appeal, with each party bearing its own costs.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declined to decide at that stage on Merz's request to keep a newly submitted piece of evidence (Exhibit 823) confidential from public access under Article 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP. Merz had uploaded the exhibit under the HC (highly confidential) code without filing a simultaneous application for a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP. The Court held that R. 262.2 RoP requests concern future public access requests, not restrictions on disclosure to the opposing party, and that uploading under HC code without a R. 262A RoP application lacks legal basis.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal against a first-instance decision revoking European Patent EP 3 498 115, following the dismissal of Juul Labs' appeal at the EPO Boards of Appeal. The Court ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings as the unsuccessful party and granted a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the rule applicable before the 1 January 2026 amendment.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 3 613 453. After the Boards of Appeal of the EPO revoked the patent during the appeal proceedings, VMR Products (the appellant/defendant) applied to withdraw its appeal, which NJOY (the respondent/claimant) consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered VMR Products to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 20% refund of the appeal court fees under the version of R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP applicable before 1 January 2026.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 3 504 990. After the Central Division Paris revoked the patent and the EPO Boards of Appeal subsequently upheld that revocation, Juul Labs applied to withdraw its appeal. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings as the unsuccessful party, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the rule applicable before the 1 January 2026 amendment.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the revocation of European Patent EP 3 430 921. After the Central Division Paris revoked the patent and the EPO Boards of Appeal subsequently confirmed the revocation, Juul Labs applied to withdraw its appeal under R. 265 RoP, which NJOY consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the pre-amendment R. 370.9(b) RoP.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
VMR Products LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 456 214 relating to a vaporizer (electronic cigarette), appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division that revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, confirming that the patent's claims, including independent claim 1 and dependent claims, lack an inventive step over the prior art, particularly the Pan reference. VMR Products was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ordered Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd to provide security for costs of EUR 75,000 in each of two appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_622/2025 and UPC_CoA_623/2025) brought against Grundfos Holding A/S. The court held that under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ, only the respondent to an appeal (Berufungsbeklagter) is entitled to request security for costs, and that the risk of enforcement difficulties in China justified the order.
Docket Navigator v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited and Syngenta Limited
Docket Navigator, a US-based patent litigation intelligence platform, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded UPC Court of Appeal proceedings between Syngenta and Sumi Agro, intending to make these documents available to its subscribers. Both Sumi Agro and Syngenta objected, citing copyright concerns, pending rehearing proceedings, and the commercial nature of Docket Navigator's platform. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that copyright is not a general interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA and that granting access to a company intending to redistribute documents to subscribers would compromise the proper conduct of proceedings.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Innovative Sonic Corporation's appeal against an order of the President of the Local Division Munich that changed the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that when deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances must be considered, primarily those related to the specific case and the position of the parties, particularly the defendant.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns the consequences of the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (STRABAG) on the appeal lodged by its intervener (Chainzone) in a patent infringement case. The court held that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws its appeal following an out-of-court settlement, rendering the intervener's appeal moot. Chainzone's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to bear its own costs.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.
This case concerns the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (Strabag) following an out-of-court settlement with the opposing party (Swarco) in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 2 643 717, and the consequences for the appeal independently filed by the intervener (Chainzone). The Court of Appeal admitted the withdrawal of Strabag's appeal and declared Chainzone's separate appeal moot under R. 360 of the Rules of Procedure, holding that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws from the proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a light emitting diode (LED) of the flip-chip type. The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division Düsseldorf's finding that the patent was invalid due to added matter (unzulässige Erweiterung) because claim 1, directed to an LED with only a single mesa, extended beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a flip-chip type light emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision from the Local Division Düsseldorf, confirming that the patent is invalid due to inadmissible extension (added matter) because the claimed LED with only a single mesa extends beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected appeals by Roku against orders of the Local Division Munich that had dismissed Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. The court held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under the UPCA does not infringe the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
Roku appealed orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected its objections to the court's jurisdiction in three infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust concerning three European patents. The Court of Appeal held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Articles 71a et seq. Brussels Ia Regulation and Article 32 UPCA does not interfere with the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts under Articles 19 TEU and 267 TFEU, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Article 87(2) UPCA to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division. All appeals were dismissed.
Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Roku's appeals against orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. The court upheld the admissibility of objections based on lack of jurisdiction under R. 19.1(a) RoP, confirmed the UPC's international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71a ff. Brussels Ia Regulation, and held that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Art. 87(2) UPCA (applied analogously) to replace London with Milan as a section of the Central Division following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., relating to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, holding that claim 1 of the patent contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because feature 5.2 (openings near the edge of the substrate) was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application as filed. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 were declared invalid, the infringement claims were dismissed, and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH & Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, which relates to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision, finding that claim 1 (and dependent claims 4, 5, 6, and 9) contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because a key feature regarding openings near the substrate edge was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original parent applications. The Court declared the relevant claims invalid and rejected all infringement claims brought by Seoul Viosys.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH & expert e-Commerce GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on August 21, 2025, disregarding a post-hearing submission filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. after the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. Viosys had submitted a Rule 9 filing along with a post-hearing brief summarizing its arguments in response to the court's introduction. The court held that under Rule 36 RoP, further submissions require prior court approval and are not permitted after the oral hearing, when the case is ready for decision.
expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected expert's application for leave to appeal a cost decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Local Division had declared expert's application for cost assessment inadmissible as time-barred under R. 151 RoP, having been filed more than one month after the main decision was served via the CMS. The Court of Appeal held that no preliminary reference to the CJEU was necessary, finding that the one-month deadline under R. 151 RoP is not disproportionate and does not violate Art. 69 UPCA or Art. 47 of the EU Charter.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), and Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V. had been ordered by the Court of Appeal to provide security of €25,000 for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA in appeal proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067. After the appeal was adjudicated and the parties entered into a settlement agreement, Kinexon requested release of the security and transfer to its bank account, with consent from both Ballinno and UEFA. The Court of Appeal ordered the release and full transfer of the €25,000 deposit to Kinexon Sports GmbH.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned Barco N.V.'s application for leave to change its claim and request for exchange of further written pleadings in proceedings related to alleged infringement of EP 3 732 827. The Court of First Instance (Brussels Local Division) had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures for lack of urgency. The Court of Appeal denied Barco's application to introduce a subsidiary claim, finding it broadened the original claim without justification for late amendment, and also rejected Barco's requests for further written pleadings and to disregard portions of Yealink's Statement of response.
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.