Ingeborg Simonsson
99 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
99 cases indexed | Page 4 of 4
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore AS and Others
This case concerns an appeal by Ocado Innovation Limited against an order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division granting a member of the public access to the statement of claim in infringement proceedings Ocado had brought against multiple Autostore entities. The Court of Appeal addressed two issues: the composition of its panel under Art. 9(1) UPCA, and public access to written pleadings and evidence under R.262.1(b) RoP. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a panel of three legally qualified judges may decide purely non-technical matters, and that the balance of interests favored granting access to the statement of claim.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Curio Bioscience's application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to confidential information to certain persons during appeal proceedings. The court rejected the application as superfluous, holding that the Local Division Düsseldorf's final confidentiality order of March 11, 2024, which was not appealed, already extended to the appeal proceedings and adequately protected the information in question.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed an appeal by Netgear concerning the deadline for filing a Statement of Defense after Huawei extended its infringement action to include a second patent (EP 3678321). The Court held that due process requires the defendant to have the same time to respond to an added patent as if a new action had been filed, and set the defense deadline to April 18, 2024, running from the date of the Local Division's confirmation order (January 18, 2024) rather than from the earlier judge-rapporteur's order.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the deadline for a defendant's response after a claim extension adding a new patent (EP 3678321) to an already pending infringement action. The Court of Appeal held that due process requires the defendant to have the same time to respond to the newly added patent as if a new action had been filed, and set aside the Court of First Instance's ruling that the response period began on December 11, 2023, instead fixing the deadline at April 18, 2024.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's request for acceleration of appeal proceedings under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed an order of the Local Division Munich that separated the claim based on EP 3678321 from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1. The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening of time limits, finding that granting it would not adequately consider Huawei's interest in adequate preparation time and would violate principles of proportionality, fairness, and equity.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's application for acceleration of appeal proceedings and shortening of time limits under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed a decision of the Local Division Munich that allowed Huawei to extend its infringement claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening the time limit for filing the response to the appeal, finding that granting the request would prejudice Huawei's right to adequate preparation time and would conflict with principles of proportionality, fairness, and due process.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the Appellants' (OPPO and OROPE) request for expedition of appeal proceedings. The Appellants had sought a shortened deadline for the Respondent's (Panasonic) Statement of response in connection with their appeal against an order rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court held that granting the request would unfairly prejudice the Respondent's right to prepare its response, outweighing the Appellants' interest in filing their Statement of defence in English before the 22 December 2023 deadline.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the Appellants' (OPPO and OROPE) request for expedition of appeal proceedings and shortening of the time period for the Respondent to lodge a Statement of response. The Appellants had appealed an order of the Court of First Instance rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings from German to English, and sought an expedited decision before 22 December 2023, the deadline for filing their Statement of defence in the main proceedings.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the Appellants' (OPPO and OROPE) request for expedition of their appeal against a Court of First Instance order rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court held that granting the request would give the Respondent only four working days to respond, insufficiently accounting for the Respondent's interests and the principles of proportionality, fairness, and equity.
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.