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 associated companies (jointly referred to as 'the Abbott companies')
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted DexCom, Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiaries. Concurrently, the Abbott companies agreed to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. This mutual withdrawal resulted in the closure of the proceedings, meaning the patent EP 3 435 866 remains fully in force across all relevant territories. The decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding withdrawals during appeal.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (collectively 'the Abbott companies')
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal granted DexCom Inc.'s request to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and associated companies. This withdrawal followed mutual consent from both parties, allowing the court to declare all proceedings closed. The decision is significant as it reinforces the flexibility of the UPC system regarding case closure when parties agree, while also providing a clear procedural path for fee reimbursement.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural issues concerning cost determination following a provisional measures case. The court ruled that deadlines for filing costs claims are tied to substantive decisions, not interim orders. Crucially, it affirmed that the principle allowing successful parties to claim legal costs (EPC Art. 69) applies even when no full infringement or validity proceedings have been initiated, provided the initial action was unsuccessful.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional question: whether the Unified Patent Court can hear an independent claim for damages following a successful national infringement judgment. The court affirmed that since the damage claim is rooted in patent infringement, it falls under the scope of Article 32(1)(a) EPC. This ruling provides significant clarity and predictability for patentees seeking to enforce their rights across the UPC system.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding security for costs in an ongoing infringement action involving TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR and Texas Instruments. The claimant challenged the initial order, arguing that the judge-rapporteur lacked competence to issue such a binding case management order and simultaneously deny leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that since security for costs is a case management matter, only the full panel can decide on leave to appeal. Consequently, the original order was revoked, and the case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the translation requirement for evidence in appeal proceedings. Syngenta requested that a specific document, Exhibit FF25, not be translated into English. The court reviewed the relevant Rules of Procedure (RoP) and ultimately granted the request. The ruling clarifies the discretionary power of the Court of Appeal regarding language requirements when parties submit documents during appellate stages.
Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural issues arising from an appeal challenging provisional measures against Sumi Agro Limited. The core dispute involved the alleged infringement by Syngenta using different versions of a product named 'Kagura' (2023 vs 2024). The court ultimately allowed Syngenta to introduce new evidence detailing the characteristics and purchase of the 2024 product, finding that the late submission was justified. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in allowing relevant factual developments during appeal proceedings.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
In a significant decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Dyson's request for an injunction against SharkNinja concerning EP 2 043 492. The court found that the probability of infringement was not overwhelmingly high, particularly regarding the cyclonic separating apparatus feature (1.3). This ruling underscores the high evidentiary threshold required to obtain provisional relief in UPC proceedings.
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal challenging a provisional measures order, but ultimately focused on procedural compliance regarding court fees. The Appellant failed to pay the required remainder and penalty fees after being ordered to provide evidence of his small enterprise status. Consequently, the Court issued a decision by default against the Appellant, dismissing the appeal. This case highlights the strict adherence UPC courts maintain to procedural deadlines and financial obligations.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the scope of judicial competence, specifically whether a judge-rapporteur can unilaterally impose security for costs and deny leave to appeal. The court ruled that while case management orders are generally not directly appealable, the underlying issue raised an important access to justice question about judicial authority. By allowing limited leave to appeal on this procedural point, the Court ensured that fundamental questions of procedure could be addressed by a panel.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning an infringement case involving Philips and Belkin regarding inductive power transfer technology (EP 2 867 997). The court ruled on the conditions necessary to grant a stay of execution, emphasizing that the application must be self-sufficient for preliminary review. Crucially, the decision also clarified the legal limitations on holding company directors liable as secondary infringers under EPC Article 63, while ultimately granting the stay against specific individuals.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This UPC Appeal Board decision addressed a motion to admit new evidence in an ongoing infringement case involving SharkNinja and Dyson regarding EP 2 043 492. SharkNinja sought to introduce documents from a US patent litigation, arguing that the opposing party's interpretation of key features was crucial for determining novelty and inventive step. The Appeal Board ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that evidence from other proceedings must meet strict relevance criteria and cannot simply contradict arguments made in the current case.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for expedition rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. EOFlow sought to accelerate the appeal process to facilitate the joinder of parallel actions before oral hearings. However, the court rejected this request, finding that EOFlow's delay in filing its statement of grounds prejudiced the respondent, Insulet. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to procedural fairness and proportionality when managing timelines.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal order addressed a procedural challenge brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against an earlier CFI order concerning security for costs. Suinno sought discretionary review, arguing that the original CFI order failed to properly indicate its right to appeal under UPCA rules. The Court ultimately dismissed the request, emphasizing strict adherence to the appellate procedure.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
This UPC appeal case centered on procedural disputes regarding the scope of arguments and the admissibility of new evidence in a patent infringement/validity matter concerning vacuum cleaner technology. Dyson sought to have certain grounds for invalidity disregarded by the Board of Appeal, while SharkNinja attempted to introduce late-filed US documents (FBD 27 and FBD 28) as supporting evidence. The Board ultimately rejected Dyson's procedural request but dismissed SharkNinja's attempts to introduce new material, emphasizing strict adherence to established appeal procedures.
Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters related to an infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox concerning a snow avalanche transceiver (LVS) device protected by EP 3 466 498. The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals regarding interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's decision, but Mammut was ordered to cover additional provisional costs incurred by Ortovox during the appellate process.
Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters within a patent infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox regarding an LVS device (EP 3 466 498). The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals concerning interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. While the core dispute was about patent validity/infringement, the ruling ultimately dismissed Mammut's appeal and ordered them to cover additional provisional costs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses a motion for the production of evidence (R.190 VerfO) in an SEP dispute concerning 4G mobile phone standards. OPPO and OROPE sought access to Panasonic's confidential licensing agreements to bolster their FRAND defense, arguing that transparency was necessary. The Court ultimately rejected these requests, stressing the principle of proportionality and the need to protect trade secrets, even when dealing with SEPs.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addressed an application for the production of evidence (R.190 VerfO) during a complex SEP/FRAND dispute involving OPPO, OROPE, and Panasonic. The court rejected the request by the defendants to obtain extensive documentation from Panasonic regarding its licensing agreements with third parties. The ruling underscores the judicial balancing act required when assessing requests for confidential information in FRAND cases, prioritizing proportionality over broad disclosure.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses an appeal concerning the disclosure of confidential license agreements during a SEP dispute involving Panasonic, OPPO, and OROPE. The core issue was whether the defendants could compel the production of extensive third-party licensing data to support their FRAND defense. The court ultimately rejected these requests, ruling that while transparency is important, the principle of proportionality and trade secret protection must be balanced against the current stage of the proceedings. This decision reinforces the judiciary's cautious approach to broad discovery in complex SEP litigation.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Ballinno B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an appeal proceeding concerning EP 1 944 067. The Kinexon companies and UEFA successfully argued that the respondent, Ballinno B.V., lacked sufficient financial means to guarantee the reimbursement of legal expenses. Consequently, the court mandated Ballinno to provide € 25,000 in security for costs. This ruling reinforces the UPC's ability to manage litigation risk by ensuring that parties with questionable financial standing can be required to secure their potential cost obligations.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC appellate case involved an application by 10x Genomics to reopen proceedings following a ruling that overturned an initial injunction against NanoString Technologies. 10x argued that the original judgment violated fundamental procedural rights, specifically regarding the court's reliance on its own technical expertise rather than party-submitted evidence. The Appellate Court firmly rejected this claim, stating that judicial assessment of facts and evidence is not subject to review in a reopening application, thereby upholding the previous decisions.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding service of process on non-EU defendants, specifically those based in China and Hong Kong. Panasonic challenged the court's requirement for prior Hague Convention service attempts before allowing service via an EU group company (Xiaomi DE). The Board upheld the lower court's stance, emphasizing that corporate structure alone does not satisfy the requirements for valid cross-border service to non-EU jurisdictions. This ruling reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC cases involving international defendants, particularly when attempting to leverage intra-group relationships for jurisdictional purposes.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict rules governing service of process for defendants located outside the EU, specifically in China and Taiwan. The court ruled that a group company within an EU Member State cannot substitute for the statutory seat or principal place of business of its foreign affiliate. This ruling emphasizes that parties must follow established international procedures, such as the Hague Convention, when serving claims on non-EU entities.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG et al. v.Ona Patents SL
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Apple seeking to accelerate the appeal process and reduce the deadline for Ona's reply. The court ultimately denied the request, holding that while acceleration was possible, Apple failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to override Ona's right to a fair trial. This case underscores the judiciary's careful balancing act between party efficiency demands and fundamental procedural fairness within the UPC framework.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application to partially withdraw an appeal in an infringement case. The claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to remove two respondents (Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE) from the ongoing appeal proceedings. However, the Court ruled against this withdrawal, emphasizing that even indirect interests—such as those related to service obligations or the course of litigation—constitute a legitimate interest under UPC rules. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural fairness requires all affected parties to be heard.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co, Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural issue of partially withdrawing an appeal against multiple defendants in a patent infringement case. Nera Innovations sought to withdraw its appeal specifically against two EU-based Xiaomi entities (NL and DE), arguing they lacked legitimate interest due to prior service of process. The court rejected this request, emphasizing that even if some parties are not directly affected by the procedural change, their right to due process must be protected. This ruling reinforces the importance of considering all stakeholders' interests when managing complex multi-defendant litigation in the UPC.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for an extension of time to lodge grounds of appeal in the main infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_169/2024). Daedalus Prime LLC sought additional time, arguing the complexity of the legal issues and potential precedent implications. The Panel ultimately denied this request, reinforcing the principle that parties must present thorough arguments proactively rather than relying on procedural delays to gather external opinions.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the time limit for lodging an appeal against an order from the Court of First Instance (CFI). The appellant, AIM Sport Development AG, argued that the CFI's own 'Information about appeal' stated a two-month deadline, even though the strict rule (R.224.1(b) RoP) mandated only 15 days for certain orders. Applying the principle of legitimate expectations, the Court of Appeal sided with AIM, finding the appeal admissible. This ruling highlights the importance of procedural fairness and how courts must interpret rules when CFI guidance creates a reasonable expectation.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 697 391, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Curio Bioscience's request to change the court language from German to English. The decision emphasized that fairness is paramount when considering such changes, particularly weighing the position of the defendant (10x Genomics). This case highlights the practical application of procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust proceedings based on linguistic and operational needs.
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.