Ingeborg Simonsson
99 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
99 cases indexed | Page 1 of 4
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS v.Amgen N.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal in a pharmaceutical infringement case (Sanofi/Regeneron v. Amgen). Although the parties successfully withdrew the proceedings, citing an agreement and consent from all parties, the court strictly ruled on the financial aspects. The request for reimbursement of court fees was dismissed because the withdrawal occurred after the written procedure had been closed, demonstrating the Court's adherence to procedural timelines.
Amgen N.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Amgen against a prior ruling in infringement proceedings. The case, involving major biotech players like Regeneron and Sanofi, was ultimately withdrawn because the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Although the court permitted the procedural withdrawal, it strictly denied Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees, highlighting the precise application of UPC Rules of Procedure regarding timing and fee recovery.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict procedural requirements governing ex parte orders for evidence preservation. Ecovacs sought an inspection order against Roborock, but the Local Division revoked it due to incomplete disclosure by Ecovacs regarding Roborock's direct market activities. The Court of Appeal upheld this revocation, stressing that applicants have a heightened duty under R. 192.3 RoP to disclose all material facts influencing the court’s decision, regardless of whether those facts are later introduced in the main action.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for a rehearing filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against Microsoft Corporation. Suinno argued that the prior decisions were based on fundamental procedural defects, warranting a re-opening of the infringement proceedings. The Court firmly rejected this claim, emphasizing that a rehearing is not a regular appeal but an extraordinary remedy reserved only for truly intolerable procedural flaws. The ruling reinforces the principle of legal certainty in UPC proceedings, making it clear that parties must raise all relevant objections during the initial stages and appeals, rather than attempting to circumvent finality through applications for rehearing.
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a legal representative firm, seeking public access to documents from pending infringement proceedings (Boehringer v. Zentiva). The court established strict criteria for such requests, emphasizing that they must be highly specified and not based on relevance criteria set by the applicant. While acknowledging the general interest in transparency, the Court ultimately granted limited access only to specific redacted pleadings, balancing this against the need to protect sensitive commercial information.
Gowling WLG v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited (jointly 'Sumi Agro')
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for public access to case files, specifically concerning the scope and specificity required when requesting documents. Gowling WLG sought access to various pleadings from an appeal proceeding (UPC_CoA_523/2024). The court partially granted the request, allowing access to specified written submissions after redaction of personal data. However, the broad and non-specific nature of the exhibit request was rejected, setting a clear procedural boundary for document disclosure in UPC proceedings.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Guardant Health against Sophia Genetics concerning a provisional measures proceeding. Guardant sought to suspend the interim award of EUR 400,000 in costs granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI). The court ultimately rejected this request, holding that the appeal lacked the necessary exceptional circumstances to override the general rule that appeals do not have suspensive effect. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC proceedings.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.European Patent Office (EPO)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict interpretation of unitary patent effect under Regulation 1257/2012. Papst Licensing challenged the EPO's rejection of their request for unitary effect, arguing that historical context and proportionality should allow registration despite the omission of Malta in the original designation. The court firmly rejected this argument, emphasizing a literal reading of Article 3(1). This ruling reinforces the mandatory nature of procedural requirements when seeking unitary protection.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Viatris Santé
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for maintaining confidentiality in proceedings. The court ruled that merely requesting confidentiality under R. 262.2 RoP is insufficient to restrict disclosure by opposing parties; a formal application under R. 262A RoP must be made simultaneously with lodging confidential evidence. This ruling emphasizes that unrestricted access is the default, and procedural compliance is mandatory for any restriction.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, Juul Labs successfully sought permission to withdraw its appeal against a revocation judgment. The court granted the withdrawal based on the consent of the opposing party, NJOY. While Juul Labs received a 60% refund of its court fees, it was ultimately ordered to cover the legal costs incurred by NJOY during the appeal process. This case highlights the procedural requirements for withdrawing appeals and the general rule regarding cost allocation in UPC litigation.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal against the revocation of EP 3 498 115. This was possible because the opposing party, NJOY Netherlands B.V., consented to the withdrawal. While the proceedings were closed, the court upheld the general principle that the withdrawing appellant is considered unsuccessful and must cover the costs incurred by the successful party (NJOY) for the appeal stage.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application to withdraw an appeal in a patent revocation case involving vaping technology. The court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal after NJOY consented, closing the appellate proceedings. Despite allowing the withdrawal, the court applied standard cost rules, ruling that Juul Labs, as the appellant who withdrew, was ultimately unsuccessful and must cover NJOY's legal costs for the appeal.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court permitted the withdrawal of an appeal filed by VMR Products LLC against a partial revocation ruling. The key factor enabling the withdrawal was the consent of NJOY Netherlands B.V., which negated any claim that NJOY had a legitimate interest in the ongoing litigation. While the appeal was withdrawn, the Court upheld the general principle that the unsuccessful party (the appellant) must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal against a revocation action concerning EP 3 456 214, a patent covering vaporizer technology. The court confirmed the initial finding that several claims lacked inventive step due to anticipation by prior art (Pan). Furthermore, the judgment provided important procedural guidance on how parties must manage new evidence and arguments when responding to applications to amend under the UPC's strict front-loaded system. This case is significant for practitioners navigating complex revocation proceedings in the unified patent court.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd
This UPC appellate decision clarifies the strict application of Article 69(4) EPC regarding cost security. The court ruled that in appeal proceedings, only the appellant is considered the applicant for costs purposes. Consequently, Grundfos (the appellee/claimant in this specific context) was permitted to request security against Hefei (the appellant/respondent). This ruling reinforces the principle that cost security measures are designed to protect the party initiating the legal action from potential non-payment.
Docket Navigator v.Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited; Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by the litigation intelligence platform, Docket Navigator, seeking access to confidential written pleadings and evidence in an concluded case. The court ruled that the commercial interest of making these documents available to subscribers does not meet the threshold for protection under Article 45 UPCA. Furthermore, the requirement for representation was deemed essential to safeguard procedural integrity. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining judicial confidentiality unless a legitimate public interest is demonstrated.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, Realme Germany GmbH, Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V., OTECH Italia S.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Innovative Sonic Corporation and OPPO et al. The appeal sought to overturn the initial decision to switch from German to English, arguing that this change created undue costs for the claimant. However, the Court upheld the original order, finding that English was the common working language across the parties' global operations and technology field. This ruling reinforces the court's discretion in prioritizing fairness based on practical factors like industry language and party domicile.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party intervenor (Streithelfer) when the main party withdraws their appeal. The case involved Strabag and Swarco, with Chainzone intervening to support Strabag's position regarding patent EP 2 643 717. When Strabag settled out of court and withdrew its appeal, the UPC ruled that Chainzone’s intervention became legally moot. This decision clarifies strict rules governing third-party involvement in appellate proceedings.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party assisting party (Streithelfer) when the main supported party withdraws their appeal. Chainzone, acting as an assistant to Strabag, sought to continue its own infringement appeal against Swarco. However, because Strabag reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew its appeal, the court ruled that Chainzone's independent legal standing was lost. Consequently, Chainzone's appeal was dismissed without subject matter.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent (EP 3 223 320). The central dispute revolved around whether the patent claims represented an impermissible expansion beyond the disclosure in the original international application. While the court discussed principles regarding translation and scope, it ultimately dismissed the appeal. This outcome is significant as it reinforces the validity of patents even when challenges based on improper claim drafting or scope extension are raised.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent, focusing heavily on the interpretation of prior art and the scope of claims. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim did not impermissibly extend beyond the content of the earlier application. This ruling reinforces strict standards for interpreting disclosures in patent applications, particularly when dealing with translations of international filings.
Dolby International AB v.Roku Inc.
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against infringement proceedings initiated by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. Roku argued that the EPC's structure violated fundamental EU rights, particularly concerning judicial independence and jurisdiction. The Court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that jurisdictional challenges must adhere strictly to the enumerated grounds in the Rules of Procedure. The ruling reinforces the established legal framework governing the UPC's competence and administrative flexibility.
Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against the rejection of its opposition filings. Roku had argued that the UPC's structure and jurisdiction violated fundamental EU rights, specifically concerning judicial independence and the competence allocation under the EPC. The court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that all grounds for opposition must be within the scope defined by Rule 19.1 VerfO. The ruling reinforces the established legal framework of the UPC regarding its jurisdictional powers and administrative flexibility.
Dolby International AB v.Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. Roku argued that the UPC's jurisdiction violated fundamental EU rights and challenged the court's organizational structure. The Court firmly dismissed these arguments, clarifying that jurisdictional objections must adhere to specific grounds under the Rules of Procedure. The ruling also affirmed the Administrative Committee's authority to adapt the UPC's structure as necessary.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In a significant decision regarding patent scope, the UPC Board of Appeal invalidated key claims of EP 3 926 698. The core finding centered on the doctrine of impermissible expansion, holding that a claim cannot extend beyond what was clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application documents. This ruling reinforces strict interpretation requirements for divisional applications, emphasizing that the scope must be traceable to both the initial filing and the parent PCT application. For patent practitioners, this case serves as a strong reminder of the critical importance of precise drafting and disclosure during the prosecution phase.
expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In this UPC appeal, expert klein GmbH successfully challenged the validity of EP 3 926 698 held by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The court ruled that Claim 1 was invalid because it contained an impermissible extension of subject matter. Specifically, features not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application or PCT filing were deemed outside the scope of protection. This decision reinforces strict interpretation principles regarding claim scope derived from initial patent disclosures, a critical point for IP strategy.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH; expert e-Commerce GmbH
This decision from the UPC Board of Appeal addresses procedural matters following an oral hearing in a complex infringement and revocation case. The claimant, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., attempted to submit additional written arguments after the proceedings concluded. The Court firmly ruled that once the oral phase is complete, the matter is ready for judgment, and further submissions are generally inadmissible unless explicitly permitted by the court under strict rules.
expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addressed an appeal concerning a cost determination following the revocation of a patent. The claimant, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, challenged the procedural deadlines set out in the Rules of Procedure (VerfO), arguing they conflicted with the European Patent Convention (EPÜ). However, the court rejected the request for admission to appeal, concluding that the legal questions raised had already been settled by prior rulings. This case reinforces the established procedural framework within the UPC and limits the scope for seeking preliminary interpretations from the CJEU on internal UPC procedures.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the release of security for legal costs following a settlement agreement. Ballinno B.V., who had provided €25,000 in security, successfully petitioned the court to have this amount released and transferred to Kinexon Sports GmbH. The ruling confirms that even when not explicitly covered by the rules, procedural provisions can be applied analogously to facilitate the conclusion of litigation.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural applications from Barco N.V., which sought leave to change its infringement claim and requested an exchange of further written pleadings against Yealink. The court denied the request for a claim amendment because it broadened the scope without sufficient justification regarding prior diligence. Furthermore, the application for more written exchanges was rejected as no new facts or evidence were introduced by the respondent. This ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements within UPC proceedings concerning claim amendments and the introduction of new arguments.
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.