Ingeborg Simonsson
85 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
85 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.SES-imagotag SA
This decision of the Court of Appeal addressed a late application for cost assessment (Rule 151 RoP) filed by Hanshow following interim measures proceedings against VusionGroup concerning EP 3 883 277. The court clarified that the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 RoP begins with service of the substantive decision, not with service of an interim measures order, and that failure to meet this deadline can only be remedied by reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP. The appeal was dismissed, and Hanshow was ordered to bear its own costs of the cost assessment proceedings, except for the court fee.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, ***
This appeal concerned the composition of the Court when adjudicating on a request for the imposition of periodic penalty payments under R. 354.4 RoP. The Court of Appeal held that such a request must be adjudicated by a panel, not by a single judge. The appeal was brought by Hybridgenerator ApS against an order of the Copenhagen Local Division dated 3 March 2025, which had declined to impose penalty payments on the Respondents in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 238 202.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal by Tandem Diabetes against a decision of the Central Division Paris dated 18 December 2024, which had dismissed their revocation action concerning EP 2 196 231 (a patent relating to a system for ambulatory drug infusion) and ordered Tandem Diabetes to bear the costs. Following the filing of the appeal, the parties informed the Court of Appeal that they had concluded the proceedings by way of settlement. The Court of Appeal confirmed the settlement pursuant to Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered that each party bear its own costs.
Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This case concerned an appeal and cross-appeal against an order of the Local Division Munich dated December 17, 2024, regarding coercive fines imposed on Belkin for non-compliance with an information obligation under Article 67(1) EPGÜ. The Court of Appeal addressed five key legal questions relating to the setting of deadlines for providing information, the imposition of coercive fines even after belated compliance, the burden of proof regarding compliance, the scope of required disclosures (including manufacturer prices), and the permissible form of the information. The Court issued five guiding principles clarifying the procedural framework for enforcing information orders and the conditions for imposing coercive fines.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute. SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 643 717 relating to a color and light mixing collective optic, brought an infringement action against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH. STRABAG had installed LED variable traffic signs at certain locations (A12, VKP Kundl, RFB Innsbruck) that it had sourced from Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., which intervened in support of STRABAG. The Court of Appeal issued an order on May 26, 2025, addressing STRABAG's application for suspensive effect against the first instance decision of January 15, 2025.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
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.Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH
This is an appeal order concerning a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The appellant Knaus Tabbert AG sought to stay enforcement of a first-instance order, arguing that the plaintiffs' financial situation required security for enforcement. The Court of Appeal held that the ordering of security for enforcement lies within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that a defendant must raise facts justifying such security already at first instance, so that a request for suspensive effect generally cannot rely on the plaintiff's financial situation if this could have been raised earlier.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
This appeal concerned an order for security for costs and an order on provisional measures brought by Ballinno B.V. against the Kinexon companies and UEFA in relation to EP 1 944 067. The appellant had built its case for provisional measures primarily around a major sports event, but subsequently withdrew its requests for provisional measures before the Court of First Instance issued its order, rendering the action devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was admissible and that Ballinno, having taken the inherent risk of its procedural strategy, must be considered the unsuccessful party and bear the costs under Article 69(1) UPCA.
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 v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
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 Respondent
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, Inc. v.Respondent
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, Inc. v.Respondent
In an action for revocation, where both parties agreed to a stay, the appeal proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where the opposition proceedings could be expected to result in a final decision before or just after, in any case rapidly, in relation to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., 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.Respondents
This appeal concerned the allocation of costs in a revocation action before the Unified Patent Court after the former patent proprietors waived the patent in suit (EP 3 170 639). Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH had filed a revocation action against the patent proprietors, who subsequently waived the patent. The Court of Appeal addressed whether an exception to the general 'loser pays' rule under Article 69(1) EPGÜ applies when a patent proprietor waives the patent at the outset of revocation proceedings without having provoked the action.
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 France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH v.SES-imagotag SA
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns court fees for the appeal instance, an application for a default decision, and an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision. The underlying dispute involves EP 3 883 277, where VusionGroup's application for interim measures against the Hanshow companies was rejected by the Local Division Munich, with VusionGroup ordered to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues regarding the cost determination application and the admissibility of the appeal.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondents
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 Italy srl v.Respondents
This appeal concerned an order of the Central Division Paris (14 October 2024) granting Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB access to pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings between Meril Italy and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Meril Italy challenged the validity of the access request, arguing that Respondent 1's self-representation was impermissible under Art. 48 UPCA and that he could not validly represent SWAT Medical AB as its Board Chair. The Court of Appeal held that representation is a matter of public policy that may be examined at any time, and that neither self-representation nor representation by a person holding a high-level management position is permitted before the UPC.
Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott, Abbott B.V. v.Respondent
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.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 435 866. DexCom appealed a decision of the Paris Local Division that had revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. Following the appeal, both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, and the Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal court fees to DexCom.
SharkNinja Europe Limited, SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by SharkNinja to suspend the cost assessment proceedings or, alternatively, to extend the time limit for filing a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction against SharkNinja and ordering Dyson to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding when the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 of the Rules of Procedure begins to run and the applicability of Rules 150 and 151 when no main proceedings under Rule 213 are initiated.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEl GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the court over a standalone action for the quantification of damages following a national court judgment establishing patent infringement and liability for damages. The appellant, Fives ECL, sought to quantify damages of EUR 6.5 million against REEL GmbH based on a prior judgment of the Landgericht Düsseldorf finding REEL liable for infringing EP 1 740 740. The Court of Appeal overturned the Local Division Hamburg's decision and held that the court has jurisdiction over such standalone damages quantification actions, including for infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the patent was still in force at that time.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a judge-rapporteur could issue an order on security for costs under R. 158 RoP and decide on leave to appeal. The court held that while a judge-rapporteur is competent to issue an order on security for costs, such an order is a case management order subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP, and only the panel—not the judge-rapporteur—can decide on leave to appeal. The impugned order of the Mannheim Local Division was revoked and the case referred back to the same panel.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal proceeding concerned a request by Syngenta Limited to be relieved from translating Exhibit FF25, a German-language document attached to its Statement of Response. Sumi Agro, the opposing party, took no position and left the matter to the Court's discretion. The judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal ruled that the exhibit did not need to be translated, granting Syngenta's request.
Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal concerns a challenge by Sumi Agro against an order of the Local Division Munich that granted provisional measures against Sumi Agro in relation to European Patent EP 2 152 073. Sumi Agro submitted new facts and evidence in the appeal proceedings, and Syngenta objected to the admission of certain evidence while also seeking to introduce its own new evidence. The Court of Appeal disregarded Exhibit SA17 because Sumi Agro had previously submitted other pages from the same publication before the Court of First Instance, but admitted evidence relating to a possible new version of the contested embodiment (Kagura 2024) following the alleged infringer's statements about a product ingredient change.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal order concerning an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 2 043 492, which covers a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a specific handle arrangement. Dyson Technology Limited, as the patent proprietor, sought interim measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal reviewed the first instance decision and, after balancing the probabilities, concluded that it was not more likely than not that the patent was being infringed. The appeal order thus turned on the assessment of the likelihood of patent infringement in the context of interim relief.
*** v.Amycel LLC
This appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned a challenge to an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague on 31 July 2024 in a dispute involving EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had paid a reduced court fee of €6,600 (60% of the regular €11,000 fee) claiming micro-enterprise status, but the Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence to confirm the Appellant qualified as a small enterprise. After the Appellant failed to pay the additional fees ordered within the set time limit, the Respondent requested a decision by default against the Appellant.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court considered Total Semiconductor's request for discretionary review of an order by the Mannheim Local Division's judge-rapporteur requiring Total Semiconductor to provide €600,000 in security for costs. The central issue was whether a judge-rapporteur has the competence to issue an order on security for costs and deny leave to appeal, or whether such an order must be adopted by a panel. The Court of Appeal allowed leave to appeal on this procedural question but expressly excluded the substantive matter of security for costs from the scope of review.
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.