Ingeborg Simonsson
99 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
99 cases indexed | Page 2 of 4
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA
Boehringer Ingelheim, proprietor of European patent EP 1 830 843 covering nintedanib for treating fibrotic diseases including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), sought provisional measures against Zentiva, which held Portuguese marketing authorisations for generic nintedanib products and had completed national pricing and reimbursement procedures. The Lisbon Local Division denied the application, finding no imminent infringement, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that completion of national health technology assessment, pricing and reimbursement procedures can constitute imminent infringement. The Court of Appeal granted a provisional injunction against Zentiva across all UPC territories where the patent is in force, coupled with recurring penalty payments, and ordered Zentiva to pay €199,000 in interim costs.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (Confidentiality Order)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 1, 2025, concerning requests for confidentiality and access/use restrictions in an appeal arising from a patent infringement action. The court partially granted the confidentiality requests of STRABAG and its intervener Chainzone, classifying certain information and annexes as confidential trade secrets under Art. 58 EPCA, while rejecting certain requests as inadmissible because they were first raised in the appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted in first instance.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH, SSAB Europe Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Tiroler Rohre's appeal against a cost determination order of the Local Division Munich. The court held that the general cost determination procedure under R. 150 ff. RoP applies to cost decisions following withdrawal of an application under R. 265 RoP, and that on appeal, review is limited to a marginal check of whether the awarded costs are reasonable and proportionate under Article 69(1) UPCA.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 concerning a method and system for detecting offside situations, applied for provisional measures against Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division. The Local Division ordered Ballinno to provide security for costs of €56,000 and subsequently dismissed the application for provisional measures. On appeal, Ballinno withdrew its requests for provisional measures, rendering the action devoid of purpose, and the Court of Appeal rejected Ballinno's challenge to the security order, ordered Ballinno to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and set the value of the dispute for appeal at €100,000.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company and Others
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, sought a rehearing of a Court of Appeal decision that had dismissed its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal of provisional measures against multiple Amgen entities. Alexion alleged fundamental procedural defects, claiming the Court of Appeal applied a new claim interpretation standard without hearing it and based its decision on incorrect facts. The Court of Appeal rejected the application as not allowable, holding that Alexion's submissions amounted to mere disagreement with the court's reasoning rather than establishing a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 concerning treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, applied for a rehearing of the Court of Appeal's order dismissing its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal of provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis. Alexion alleged fundamental procedural defects, claiming the Court of Appeal applied a new claim interpretation standard without giving it an opportunity to be heard and based its decision on incorrect facts. The Court of Appeal rejected the application as not allowable, holding that a rehearing is an extraordinary remedy requiring a defect so fundamental that the same decision could not have been reached without it, and that mere disagreement with the court's reasoning does not constitute such a defect.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Knaus Tabbert's objection (Gegenvorstellung) against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect of its appeal. The court held that an objection under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which merely contests the reasoning of the rejecting order, is inadmissible, as Rule 9.1 governs procedural management measures and does not permit the alteration of final procedural orders.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.SES-imagotag SA
Unified Patent Court decision.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH before the Central Division Paris concerning European Patent EP 2 196 231, relating to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. The Central Division dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as granted, after which Tandem Diabetes appealed. Following the appeal, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Court of Appeal to confirm it, which the Court did, terminating the appellate proceedings and confirming that each party bears its own costs.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside a portion of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division concerning the imposition of periodic penalty payments, ruling that such a decision under R. 354.4 RoP must be made by a panel rather than a single judge. The case was referred back to the Local Division for adjudication as a panel on Hybridgenerator's request that periodic penalty payments be imposed on the Respondents for alleged non-compliance with an evidence preservation order.
Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a coercive fine (Zwangsgeld) imposed on Belkin for non-compliance with an information order related to the infringement of Philips' European Patent EP 2 867 997. The Court of Appeal reduced the coercive fine from €46,000 to €42,000, ordered a partial refund, and adjusted the cost allocation between the parties, while rejecting the further-reaching claims of both sides.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH)
This order concerns an application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., as intervener supporting defendant STRABAG, for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Vienna. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, finding that Chainzone failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision was manifestly incorrect or that fundamental procedural rights were violated. The substantive issues regarding patent claim interpretation and infringement will be addressed in the appeal proceedings.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against Juul Labs International Inc. regarding EP 3 504 991 before the Paris Central Division, which dismissed the action and ordered NJOY to bear the costs. NJOY appealed the cost decision, but subsequently applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP, with Juul Labs' consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
This is a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a first-instance decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The first-instance court had found that Knaus Tabbert infringed European Patent EP 3 356 109 (relating to a vehicle frame with foam resin structural parts) and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and provisional damages. The Court of Appeal rejected all of Knaus Tabbert's requests, holding that ordering security for enforcement is discretionary and that facts requiring such security must be raised at first instance.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of EP 1 944 067 relating to a method and system for detecting offside situations, sought provisional measures against Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division in connection with the Connected Ball Technology used at UEFA EURO 2024. After the Local Division dismissed its application for lack of urgency and insufficient proof of infringement, and ordered Ballinno to provide security for costs, Ballinno appealed but withdrew its request for a provisional injunction because the tournament had already taken place. The Court of Appeal held the appeal on security for costs admissible and set out principles for costs allocation, indicating that a party who builds its case on a single event and withdraws after the event passes must generally bear the costs as the unsuccessful party.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
An appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of proceedings. The appellant, Hybridgenerator ApS, appealed an order of the Copenhagen Local Division that declined to order the respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for failure to comply with an earlier order. With the agreement of both parties, the Court of Appeal changed the language of the appeal proceedings from Danish to English, finding that the change would shorten the timeframe for adjudication without causing disadvantage to the parties.
Meril GmbH v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R.262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case between Meril GmbH and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris order granting access, holding that access should not be granted to unrepresented members of the public, and that the Statement of response lodged by an unauthorized representative constituted a decision by default. The Court also rejected Meril GmbH's request for costs.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Central Division Paris that had granted a member of the public access to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825. The Court of Appeal held that access under R. 262.1(b) RoP should not be granted to members of the public who are not represented by an authorised representative, and dismissed the underlying application. The Court also rejected Meril Italy's request for compensation of costs.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB and Another
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris's order granting access, holding that access to written pleadings and evidence should not be granted to members of the public who are not properly represented. The Court also held that compensation for costs should not be awarded in relation to such applications.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
In an appeal from a revocation action concerning EP 3 498 115, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs, with the agreement of NJOY. The stay was ordered pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where oral proceedings had been scheduled for 17 October 2025. The court found that a decision from the Boards of Appeal could be expected rapidly relative to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Juul Labs International Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Juul Labs' application to stay appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990, pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Both parties agreed to the stay, and the EPO Boards of Appeal had accelerated their proceedings with oral hearings scheduled for 14 November 2025, which the court found would result in a decision before or shortly after the expected date of the Court of Appeal oral hearing.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Juul Labs' application to stay appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning EP 3 430 921, pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Both parties had agreed to the stay, and the Boards of Appeal had accelerated their proceedings with oral proceedings planned for 20 October 2025, which the court found would result in a decision before or shortly after the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. and Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
Barco N.V. appealed an order of the Local Division Brussels dismissing its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 732 827 and ordering Barco to bear costs up to €112,000. Barco applied for suspensive effect of the appeal regarding the cost order, arguing enforcement difficulties in China and that the cost order was not a concrete payment obligation. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect as unfounded, finding no manifest error and that enforcement risks did not render the appeal devoid of purpose.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.Former Patent Proprietors (EP 3 170 639)
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 at the Central Division Paris. The former patent proprietors immediately acknowledged the revocation and surrendered the patent ex tunc. The Court of First Instance ordered Stäubli to bear the costs, finding that Stäubli introduced new prior art for the first time in the revocation action without prior warning. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed Stäubli's appeal, confirming that Stäubli must bear the costs of both the first instance and appeal proceedings.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal concerned provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 152 073 relating to herbicidal compositions. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the Munich Local Division's order finding that Sumi Agro's 'Kagura' herbicide more likely than not infringed the patent, while adding Romania to the territorial scope and reversing the cost decision to order Sumi Agro to bear Syngenta's costs.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V. v.VusionGroup SA
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning court fees and procedural requirements for an appeal against a cost decision under Rule 221 RoP. VusionGroup SA sought a default decision alleging non-payment of an additional court fee by the Hanshow companies, and also sought dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible for lack of a separate notice of appeal and statement of grounds. The Court of Appeal rejected both applications, finding that the additional fee had been timely paid and that the application for leave to appeal itself constituted the notice of appeal and statement of grounds under Rule 221.2 RoP.
Meril GmbH v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned whether a European Patent Attorney who is also a party to proceedings must be represented by an independent representative under Rule 8.1 RoP. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they themselves are parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position (such as Chair of the Board) cannot represent a legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB 14 days to appoint authorised representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned whether a European Patent Attorney who is himself a party to proceedings can represent himself, and whether he can represent a company where he serves as Chair of the Board. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they are themselves parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position cannot represent a legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical 14 days to appoint authorised representatives.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a European Patent Attorney who is a party to proceedings can represent himself, and whether a board chairman can represent a company. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they themselves are parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position cannot represent the legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical 14 days to appoint authorized representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 831 282. DexCom had initiated infringement proceedings against the Abbott companies before the Paris Local Division, which were met by a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. On appeal, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and the Abbott companies withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to closure of the proceedings.
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.