Klaus Grabinski
5 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
5 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural request for discretionary review filed by the defendants (Alpinestars) against an order from the Local Division. The core issue was whether the appeal remained necessary after the Local Division subsequently amended its original ruling to grant leave to appeal. The Court ruled that since the first instance proceedings evolved and rendered the appeal obsolete, the request could be withdrawn. This case highlights the dynamic nature of UPC litigation and how procedural developments can impact appellate remedies.
Amazon.com, Inc. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
In a significant ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal denied Amazon's application for suspensive effect against an earlier Local Division Mannheim order. The dispute centered on whether the existing order, which restricted Amazon's actions regarding patent infringement proceedings in the UK, posed an imminent and irreversible threat to Amazon's interests. The court determined that while Amazon argued potential penalty risks, it failed to meet the high threshold required to justify suspending the original decision.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the effective date of service for an appeal statement in a pharmaceutical patent case (EP 3167888). The core issue was whether direct communication between parties via specialized electronic mailboxes ('beA') could count as valid service. The court definitively ruled that only service effected by the Registry through the official CMS is considered effective under UPC rules.
DexCom, Inc v.Abbott Laboratories
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the admissibility of an appeal against a confidentiality order issued by the Court of First Instance. The Appellants (Abbott) sought to challenge the penalty ceiling set in the order but failed because they had not obtained 'leave to appeal' as required by Rule 220.2 RoP. The court ruled that without this prerequisite authorization, the appeal was inadmissible from its inception.
DexCom, Inc v.Abbott Laboratories
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a fundamental procedural requirement: the necessity of obtaining leave to appeal. The case involved an attempt by Abbott Laboratories to challenge a confidentiality order issued in a patent infringement suit brought by DexCom, Inc. Despite withdrawing their appeal after learning that no leave had been granted, the Court of Appeal ruled it inadmissible from the start. This ruling serves as a strong reminder for practitioners regarding strict adherence to procedural rules when filing appeals within the UPC.
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.