Marije Knijff
10 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
10 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others v.Establishment Labs S.A.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (a group of GC Aesthetics entities and Romed N.V.) for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP against the claimant Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS) in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 107 487 B1. The defendants argued that LABS, incorporated in Costa Rica, posed an enforcement risk because Costa Rica had not ratified the Hague Judgement Convention and there was no precedent for enforcing UPC costs orders there. The Court ordered LABS to provide security of €600,000 within 21 days, either by deposit into a UPC account or by bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
This case concerned a revocation action filed by Neurocrine Biosciences against Spruce Biosciences's European patent EP 3 784 233, relating to methods for treating testicular and ovarian adrenal rest tumors. During the proceedings, the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty, and Spruce chose not to appeal. The Court disposed of the revocation action as devoid of purpose under R. 360 RoP, awarded Neurocrine 80% of the maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000), and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2448225. The order summarizes decisions taken during an interim conference held on 22 October 2025, addressing various procedural matters including the value of the case, admissibility of evidence and amendments, and the filing of further submissions. The judge-rapporteur issued orders on the admission of patent sale and assignment agreements, claim amendments, prior art documents, and inventive step objections, while referring certain admissibility questions to the panel for final decision.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2579551. Following an interim conference held on 22 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur issued decisions on various procedural matters, including the value of the case, admissibility of evidence, amendments to the patent claims, and the introduction of prior art documents. The order admits the Patent Sale Agreement and Patent Assignment Agreement, both rounds of patent amendments under Rules 30.1 and 30.2 RoP, and prior art documents D6 through D11, while granting the Claimant the right to comment on the newly introduced documents and validity attacks.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
Unified Patent Court decision.
bioMérieux UK Limited, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal Lda., bioMérieux Benelux BV v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) on 18 July 2025, following an interim conference in two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The order addresses procedural matters including the narrowing of invalidity attacks, structuring of the oral hearing, and setting deadlines for further submissions by the parties.
bioMérieux UK Limited and bioMérieux SA et al. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) in revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. Following an interim conference, the court directed bioMérieux to narrow down its approximately 50 invalidity attacks and 16 prior art citations to a manageable number, particularly focusing on Auxiliary Requests 1, 2, and 3, and ordered both parties to provide specific submissions and cost estimates by set deadlines.
SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD. v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom S.r.l.
Prinoth S.p.A., a leading Italian manufacturer of snow groomers and tracked vehicles, filed an application before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Milan seeking an order for preservation of evidence, inspection, and seizure against Xelom S.r.l., an innovative startup developing an electric snow groomer (Snow Cat). Prinoth suspected that Xelom's vehicle reproduced the teachings of its European patents EP1995159 and EP2507436. The Court granted the order inaudita altera parte, authorizing inspection of Xelom's and its parent company Technoalpin's premises, seizure of a sample vehicle, and forensic copying of digital evidence, subject to a security deposit of €75,000.
Fapa Vital AG v.Valentis Baltic UAB
Fapa Vital AG filed an application for provisional measures against Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP 1 978 949 before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement, the Applicant withdrew the application and requested reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees. The Court declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of EUR 6,600 (60% of the EUR 11,000 total Court fees), applying Rule 370.9(b) RoP by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures.
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.