Ingeborg Simonsson
99 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
99 cases indexed | Page 3 of 4
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
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.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
DexCom, Inc. appealed a decision of the Munich Local Division that revoked EP 3 797 685 entirely and dismissed all infringement claims brought against the Abbott companies. Following the appeal, DexCom applied to withdraw the infringement action, and the Abbott companies consented and applied to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% refund of appeal court fees to DexCom.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja sought, and Dyson agreed to, either a suspension of the cost assessment proceedings or alternatively an extension of the deadline to file a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction and ordering Dyson to pay SharkNinja's costs. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests as inadmissible, holding that the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP to file a cost assessment application begins with service of the substantive decision in the main proceedings, not with service of an order on interim measures.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court overturned a decision by the Local Division Hamburg which had held that the UPC lacked jurisdiction to quantify damages following a final national infringement judgment. The court ruled that the UPC has jurisdiction for a standalone claim for determination of damages after a national court has established patent infringement and the infringer's obligation to pay damages, and that this jurisdiction extends to infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the European patent was still in force at that time.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH & Texas Instruments Deutschland 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 Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning a request by Syngenta to be relieved from translating Exhibit FF25 (filed in German) attached to its Statement of response in appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. Sumi Agro, the appellant, left the matter to the discretion of the Court. The judge-rapporteur held that no translation of Exhibit FF25 was necessary.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning the admission of new evidence in proceedings related to provisional measures ordered by the Local Division Munich regarding patent EP 2 152 073. The Court of Appeal disregarded Sumi Agro's Exhibit SA17 (an excerpt from a book already partially submitted in first instance) and Syngenta's conditional counter-exhibits FF28-29, but admitted Syngenta's Exhibits FF24-27 relating to the purchase and analysis of a potentially different version of the contested Kagura product (Kagura 2024).
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division Munich in favor of Dyson Technology Limited against SharkNinja. The dispute centered on European Patent EP 2 043 492, directed to a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a cyclonic separating apparatus. The Court of Appeal set aside the preliminary injunction, finding that Dyson had not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the attacked SharkNinja embodiments infringed claim 1, specifically because the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the accused products used a cyclonic separating apparatus employing centrifugal force as required by feature 1.3 of the patent.
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against an unnamed Appellant who had appealed an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague concerning EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had initially declared micro-enterprise status to qualify for a reduced court fee but failed to substantiate his status as a small enterprise when ordered to do so, and did not pay the additional fees imposed. The Court denied the Appellant's requests to waive the additional fee and for legal aid, closed the appeal by default, and ordered the Appellant to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH & Texas Instruments Deutschland 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.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc. and Others
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 concerning inductive power transmission systems. The Local Division Munich found infringement and ordered remedies against both the corporate entities and their managing directors. Belkin appealed and sought suspensive effect of the appeal. The Court of Appeal partially granted the request, ordering suspensive effect only with respect to enforcement against the individual directors, holding that a managing director of an infringing company cannot be considered a 'third party' under Article 63 EPGÜ for intermediary liability purposes.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed SharkNinja's application to introduce new evidence (FBD 29) in appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 043 492. The evidence consisted of annexes to a brief filed by Dyson's representative in US proceedings, which SharkNinja argued was relevant to show contradictory positions taken by Dyson regarding claim interpretation. The court held that SharkNinja failed to convincingly demonstrate the relevance of the new evidence and that submissions in other proceedings do not render a party's positions in the present case contradictory.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
EOFlow appealed an order of the Central Division Milan that denied its request to join two parallel provisional measures proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327. EOFlow additionally requested the Court of Appeal to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines so that a decision could be issued before the scheduled oral hearings in the first instance. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that EOFlow had unnecessarily delayed filing its appeal and had not sufficiently taken into account the respondent's right to file a response.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 043 492, a patent dispute between SharkNinja (appellant/defendant) and Dyson Technology Limited (respondent/claimant). The Court of Appeal rejected Dyson's application to disregard several grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja, finding them sufficiently indicated in the statement of grounds. However, the court excluded two new pieces of evidence (FBD 27 and FBD 28) submitted by SharkNinja, finding they were not convincingly shown to be relevant and were submitted with undue delay.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's request for discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that granted Microsoft's request for security for costs and declared Suinno's own request for security inadmissible. The Court of Appeal held that Suinno was required to first request the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal before seeking discretionary review, and since Suinno failed to do so, its request was inadmissible.
Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the confirmation of an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices. The Court of Appeal rejected Mammut's appeal, finding that Ortovox had not engaged in unreasonable delay in seeking interim measures and that the requirements for provisional relief were met. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and to pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices (LVS-Geräte). Ortovox had obtained an ex parte interim injunction against Mammut before the Local Division Düsseldorf, which was confirmed on review. Mammut appealed the confirmation, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Mammut had waited too long before seeking review and that the interim measures were justified. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in SEP/FRAND litigation. OPPO and OROPE appealed the Local Division Mannheim's refusal to order Panasonic to produce various license agreements. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could change at a later stage.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Chamber Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that, at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, but left open the possibility that a different assessment could be reached at a later stage when FRAND-related issues are addressed.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under R.190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that at the current stage of the proceedings, where the question of basic licensing willingness had not yet been decided, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could differ at a later stage.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, and Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by Kinexon companies and UEFA for security for costs in appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. The court ruled that R.158 RoP and R.222.2 RoP are applicable to the Court of Appeal, and ordered Ballinno to provide security of €25,000 within two weeks, finding that Ballinno's financial situation raised legitimate concerns about the recoverability of any cost order.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against five defendants, including Chinese and Taiwanese entities, seeking to serve the Statement of claim on the Chinese Xiaomi companies via Xiaomi Germany and on MediaTek (Taiwan) via MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The Local Division dismissed the request, holding that service must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected Daedalus's appeal, confirming that group companies in Contracting Member States cannot automatically be treated as statutory seats, central administrations, or principal places of business of defendants domiciled in China or Taiwan, and that Hague Convention methods (for China) and diplomatic/consular channels (for Taiwan) must first be attempted.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against several Xiaomi entities, including Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. (based in China), and Xiaomi H.K. Limited (based in Hong Kong). Panasonic sought to serve these Asian Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, a sister company within the same corporate group. The Court of Appeal dismissed Panasonic's appeal, holding that a defendant company in China or Hong Kong cannot be served through a group company in a contracting member state without further justification, and that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention must generally be made before alternative service methods can be employed.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected as inadmissible an application by 10x Genomics and Harvard College for re-examination of proceedings (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens) under R.245 RoP. The application sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's earlier decision overturning a preliminary injunction in favor of 10x regarding EP 4108782. The court held that the phrase indicating assessment by a technically qualified court did not constitute use of personal judicial opinion as evidence, and that the cost order in the interim proceedings had a proper legal basis under R.242.1 RoP.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated July 11, 2024, concerning Apple's request to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the deadline for Ona Patents SL to file its response to the appeal. The court rejected Apple's acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in expediting the proceedings did not outweigh Ona's interests in a proper proceeding. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action by Ona against Apple based on EP 2 263 098, and Apple's prior request to change the procedural language from German to English, which had been rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Others
Daedalus Prime LLC applied to withdraw its appeal against two of five respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, while continuing the appeal against the remaining three respondents. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the two respondents had a legitimate interest in the appeal being decided because they had been served with the Statement of claim, had responded to the appeal, and would be directly or indirectly affected by the outcome regarding service on affiliated companies.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Others
Nera Innovations Ltd. appealed a decision of the Local Chamber Hamburg rejecting its request to serve the complaint on two Chinese Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Germany. After filing the appeal, Nera sought partial withdrawal of the appeal against the two European Xiaomi entities (Netherlands and Germany), seeking to continue the appeal only against the Chinese entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the partial withdrawal, holding that Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE had a legitimate interest in remaining in the appeal proceedings since they had already been served and had filed responses.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.
Daedalus Prime LLC sought a panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order denying its request for an extension of time to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings concerning EP 2792100. The Court of Appeal confirmed the denial, holding that Daedalus could and should have sought external advice and comprehensively set out its arguments before lodging the Statement of claim, and that CMS issues were insufficient to justify an extension.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether AIM Sport Development AG's appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Helsinki) was timely. The Court of First Instance had dismissed AIM's infringement and provisional measures actions concerning EP 3 295 663 for lack of competence due to an opt-out, and incorrectly stated a two-month appeal period applied. The Court of Appeal held that under Rule 224.1(b) RoP, the correct appeal period for orders under Article 62 UPCA was 15 days, but due to the ambiguity in the rules and the misleading information provided by the Court of First Instance, AIM's appeal was admissible under the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) that had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The appeal concerned proceedings in which 10x Genomics sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience regarding EP 2 697 391. The Court of Appeal held that the lower court's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of fairness under Article 49(5) EPGÜ and ordered English as the language of 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.