Margot Kokke
24 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
24 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Spyra v.Amycel LLC (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
The defendant, Spyra, filed an application under Rule 356 to set aside a decision by default issued against him in an infringement action brought by Amycel LLC concerning European patent EP 1 993 350 B2. The Court held that the application was inadmissible because the defendant had been put on notice in earlier orders (the R.275-Order and the R.320-Order) that a further decision by default would be final, and the same panel assessing the same factual and legal situation would not reach a different outcome. The Court rectified the default decision ex officio under Rule 353 to indicate that the proper legal remedy was an appeal within two months, not a Rule 356 application.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Abbott Diabetes Care sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini alleging infringement of European patent EP 3 988 471 (relating to displays for a medical device) by Sinocare's GlucoMen iCan continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, which Menarini distributes in Europe. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) dismissed the application, finding that the defendants' CGM system more likely than not does not infringe independent claims 1 and 14 of the patent because event data icons are not included in the timeline graph as required by the claims. Abbott was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 as an interim award of costs.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Abbott Diabetes Care sought provisional measures before the Unified Patent Court against Sinocare and Menarini concerning European patent EP 4 344 633 for 'Analyte Sensor Assemblies' related to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. Abbott alleged that the GlucoMen iCan CGM system, manufactured by Sinocare and distributed by Menarini in Europe, infringed its patent. The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding Abbott had established a strong prima facie case of infringement, the patent appeared valid, urgency existed, and the balance of interests favored Abbott.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division of the Hague) found that EP 2 432 351 B1, relating to a system for securing shelf accessories to a shelf, was valid and infringed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP). The court granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, information obligations, and damages against BSRP, while dismissing BSRP's counterclaim for revocation and declaring its counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement inadmissible.
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH, BEGA CONSULT INTERNATIONALE HANDELSAGENTUR GMBH & CO. KG, BEGA BBK SP. Z O.O. SP. K.UL., and NEG NOVEX WHOLESALE COMPANY FOR ELECTRICAL AND BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. sought provisional measures before the Local Division The Hague against members of the BEGA group and NEG Novex, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 522 755 B1 relating to a cabinet for housing a washing machine at waist level. The defendants had previously been licensed to manufacture such cabinets, but the license was terminated effective 1 August 2024. The court found a reasonable likelihood of validity and infringement, sufficient urgency, and granted the provisional measures including a prohibition on manufacturing and selling the accused 'Laundreezy' and 'Respekta Clara' cabinets, recall orders, information obligations, and penalty payments, along with a cost award of EUR 62,600.
Unnamed Case from upc_ip.db v.Ex Parte
Order
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Sintec S.r.l. and Value Med S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an application for provisional measures before the Milan Local Division based on EP 3 646 825 B1 against Sintec S.r.l. and Value Med S.r.l. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement on 23 June 2025 and jointly requested the Court to confirm it. The Court confirmed the settlement but dismissed Edwards's request for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees, holding that Rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP does not apply to provisional measures proceedings.
Orbisk B.V. v.Winnow Solutions Limited
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. Orbisk counterclaimed for revocation. The court found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request) that was not infringed by Orbisk's product, resulting in partial revocation of the patent and an order for Winnow to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request 3) and held that Orbisk's product did not infringe the patent as so limited. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful, with some claims revoked and others upheld, and Winnow was ordered to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court found that SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH infringed EP 2 839 083 B9, owned by Tiroler Rohre GmbH, by manufacturing and selling pile tips (GS115, GS140, GS170). The court rejected the defendants' arguments that their products lacked a free-standing web, a flat support surface, or actual contact between the pile end and support surface, holding that the support surface only needs to be suitable for supporting the pile end. The court also upheld the validity of the patent in amended form and granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, information obligations, publication rights, and damages.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V. filed an ex parte application to preserve evidence and inspect premises of P.T.S. Machinery B.V. based on alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 171 996. After the Court partly granted the application and an expert conducted an inspection, Mammoet sought to extend access to the expert's Written Report and its Attachments to four named employees. The Court granted the request, finding no significant risk of trade secret disclosure and noting the Defendant's non-objection.
Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Rectification of Decision)
This is a rectification order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent related to heart valve prostheses. Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (the defendants in the underlying infringement action) applied under Rule 353 RoP to rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, and obvious slips in the court's decision of 15 November 2024. The court granted several rectifications relating to factual inaccuracies on pages 13, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53, and 59 of the decision, while dismissing the remaining requests.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Infringement proceedings and counterclaims for revocation concerning European Patent EP4070727 were withdrawn by all parties before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague. All parties consented to the withdrawal and indicated no cost decision was requested. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP4070727 before the Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. All parties subsequently requested withdrawal of their respective claims and consented to the closure of proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning EP4108782. The court confirmed the judge-rapporteur's rejection of Harvard's third request to amend the patent, holding that under Rule 30.2 RoP, a delay of approximately three months between the reason for the amendment (the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion of August 2, 2024) and the filing of the request (October 25, 2024) was too long. The court ruled that the patent proprietor's subjective expectations regarding procedural delay are irrelevant, and the question must be assessed objectively.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action by Amycel LLC (proprietor of EP1993350) against an unnamed defendant located in Poland. The court addressed Amycel's application regarding the service of the Statement of Claim on the defendant, who had refused to accept delivery through multiple channels. The court ruled that the alternative methods of service employed by Amycel constituted good service under R. 275.2 RoP, deemed the Statement of Claim served on 25 November 2024, and set a three-month period for the defendant to file a Statement of Defense.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH & SSAB Europe Oy
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an application for provisional measures filed by Tiroler Rohre GmbH regarding EP 2 839 083 against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy. After the oral hearing where the court indicated concerns about granting the order, the applicant withdrew the application. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the applicant to bear all procedural costs including the costs of the protective letter filed by the defendants.
Nelissen v.OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV
This is a procedural decision from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning patent EP 2 331 036. The defendants (OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV) sought review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order that had permitted the claimant (Mr. Nelissen) to supplement his Reply with new facts, an equivalence-based infringement argument, and a modified petitum. The panel conducted a marginal review and confirmed the Judge-Rapporteur's decision in all respects, while granting the defendants leave to appeal.
Anonymous Claimant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP 2 331 036. The defendants filed a procedural application objecting to the claimant's inclusion of new facts, an equivalence-based infringement argument, and an adjusted petitum in the Reply to the Statement of Defence. The Judge-Rapporteur rejected the defendants' main request, holding that the amendments were consistent with the procedural-evolutionary course of litigation and the purpose of Rule 13 RoP, but granted a two-week extension for the defendants to file their Rejoinder.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP2713879 relating to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on-body devices, sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. for allegedly infringing the patent through the marketing of the GS1 CGM device in Europe. The Local Division The Hague granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a sufficient interest despite a unilateral cease-and-desist declaration, and that the Defendants' GS1 device likely infringed claims 1 and 4 of the patent.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 concerning an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. The court denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC), as claim 1 and its dependent claims extended beyond the disclosure of the original application. Abbott was ordered to bear the defendants' costs, with the value of the dispute set at EUR 4,000,000.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC). Abbott was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, and the value of the dispute was set at EUR 4,000,000.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 2 713 879 relating to an apparatus for an on-body continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor device, sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. for allegedly infringing the patent through the marketing of the GS1 CGM device in Europe. The Local Division The Hague granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a sufficient interest and that the Defendants' unilateral cease-and-desist declaration did not render the application devoid of purpose.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This case before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerned a patent infringement action regarding EP4108782. The defendant Vizgen sought review under Rule 333.1 of an order by the presiding judge that had partially rejected its requests for production of documents disclosed in parallel US proceedings. The full panel granted most of the production requests, ordering the plaintiffs to disclose specific emails, an FAQ document, and a deposition transcript, while treating them as confidential information accessible only to legal counsel.
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.