Kerstin Roselinger
10 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
10 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_409/2025); NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Three consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 028 981, a patent for a juice extractor owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. The appeals challenged decisions of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (Korea), and WARMCOOK's 'AUTO10' slow juicers. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of international jurisdiction under Article 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, particularly regarding Turkey (a non-UPC contracting EPC member state), and held that mere access to the case file does not constitute entering an appearance.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG, A. Menarini Diagnostics Frankreich SASU v.F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to EP 1 962 668. The applicants (Roche entities) had obtained an interim measures order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, which the respondents (Menarini entities) appealed. Following an out-of-court settlement, the applicants withdrew their application for interim measures, and the respondents consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent EP4185356 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division Milan. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted on an exceptional basis and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) concerns a revocation action regarding EP 4185356. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce new auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted in exceptional circumstances and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned a request by Panasonic Holdings Corporation to review the amount of court fee reimbursement following the withdrawal of its patent infringement actions against Xiaomi and OPPO entities. After an out-of-court settlement in late 2024, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims, and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge had granted only 40%, and the panel confirmed this decision, finding that the exceptionally complex nature of the dispute justified the reduced reimbursement under Rule 370.9(e).
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed patent infringement actions against Xiaomi and OPPO entities before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 024 163. After an out-of-court settlement at the end of 2024, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The rapporteur granted only 40%, and Panasonic sought review under Rule 333 EPGVerfO. The panel confirmed the 40% reimbursement, finding the case an extraordinary one under Rule 370.9(e) due to its exceptional complexity and the court's above-average workload.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court denied Panasonic Holdings Corporation's request under Rule 305 RoP to add OTECH Germany GmbH as a third defendant to its patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 024 163. The court found the request to add the new party was filed late and that the circumstances did not justify allowing the late addition, given the advanced stage of the proceedings and the potential prejudice to the existing defendants. The court permitted appeal, as the relevant questions had not yet been clarified by the Court of Appeal.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) to extend the deadline for filing their Duplik (reply) in a patent infringement case involving EP 3 024 163. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's Replik (rejoinder) was filed with numerous redactions serving as placeholders for later submissions, preventing them from preparing a complete response. The court held that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' is impermissible, but as an exception, ruled that the Duplik deadline had not yet begun to run.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH regarding EP 3 024 163. The court issued a consolidated confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, protecting information related to prior and ongoing license negotiations and internal business considerations. The court modified the preliminary order, limiting access to confidential information to specified persons and their legal representatives, and set a coercive penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per culpable violation.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315, held by Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. Following an oral hearing on 30 January 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to have the settlement confirmed. The court confirmed the settlement, issued a cost decision based on the parties' agreement, and ordered that the details of the settlement and cost arrangement be treated as confidential.
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.