Max Tilmann
21 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
21 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
Appeal from the Local Chamber Mannheim's decision invalidating European Patent EP 2 548 648 (relating to a mill for comminuting grinding material) and dismissing the infringement action. The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance, upheld the validity of the patent in its granted form, found direct and indirect infringement by Europe Forestry's 'Europe Grinders'/'Europe Chip Mills' products, and granted remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, information, and damages.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a light emitting diode (LED) of the flip-chip type. The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division Düsseldorf's finding that the patent was invalid due to added matter (unzulässige Erweiterung) because claim 1, directed to an LED with only a single mesa, extended beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a flip-chip type light emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision from the Local Division Düsseldorf, confirming that the patent is invalid due to inadmissible extension (added matter) because the claimed LED with only a single mesa extends beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., relating to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, holding that claim 1 of the patent contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because feature 5.2 (openings near the edge of the substrate) was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application as filed. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 were declared invalid, the infringement claims were dismissed, and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH & Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, which relates to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision, finding that claim 1 (and dependent claims 4, 5, 6, and 9) contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because a key feature regarding openings near the substrate edge was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original parent applications. The Court declared the relevant claims invalid and rejected all infringement claims brought by Seoul Viosys.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH & expert e-Commerce GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on August 21, 2025, disregarding a post-hearing submission filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. after the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. Viosys had submitted a Rule 9 filing along with a post-hearing brief summarizing its arguments in response to the court's introduction. The court held that under Rule 36 RoP, further submissions require prior court approval and are not permitted after the oral hearing, when the case is ready for decision.
Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Meril's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division finding infringement of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve and delivery catheter system). The Court held that Meril failed to demonstrate that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous or that an exception to the general rule under Article 74(1) UPCA (that appeals do not have suspensive effect) was warranted. Meril's alternative request for a stay of enforcement subject to the provision of security was also rejected.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 504 989 (titled 'VAPORIZATION DEVICE SYSTEMS'), owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. NJOY argued the patent was invalid for added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step, while Juul Labs sought to maintain the patent as granted or as amended. The Court revoked the patent as granted but maintained it in amended form based on Auxiliary Request 1, ordering each party to bear its own costs.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
A revocation action before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 626 092 B1, which relates to vaporizer/electronic cigarette devices. The claimant argued the patent lacked inventive step based on prior art references 'Pan' and 'Cross'. The court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as granted, finding the claimant's arguments regarding lack of inventive step were not well founded.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja sought, and Dyson agreed to, either a suspension of the cost assessment proceedings or alternatively an extension of the deadline to file a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction and ordering Dyson to pay SharkNinja's costs. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests as inadmissible, holding that the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP to file a cost assessment application begins with service of the substantive decision in the main proceedings, not with service of an order on interim measures.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 430 921 B1, owned by Juul Labs International, Inc. and directed to vaporization device systems. The Court revoked the patent entirely with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, and ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 602. Magna appealed the injunction, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, with no cost decision needed.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604. Magna appealed the order, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was needed.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna against a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had exempted Magna's supply obligations for five BMW models but omitted the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé (F74) from the exemption list. The Court of Appeal found that Magna had clearly identified the 2 Series Gran Coupé in its submissions and that the CFI should have included it in the exemption, ordering the injunction's effect suspended as to that model until the appeal is decided.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division Munich in favor of Dyson Technology Limited against SharkNinja. The dispute centered on European Patent EP 2 043 492, directed to a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a cyclonic separating apparatus. The Court of Appeal set aside the preliminary injunction, finding that Dyson had not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the attacked SharkNinja embodiments infringed claim 1, specifically because the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the accused products used a cyclonic separating apparatus employing centrifugal force as required by feature 1.3 of the patent.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 456 214, which relates to vaporizers/electronic cigarettes, on the grounds of lack of inventive step based on prior art documents 'Pan' and 'Cross'. The defendant filed conditional applications to amend the patent with multiple auxiliary requests. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the grounds for invalidity well founded, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed SharkNinja's application to introduce new evidence (FBD 29) in appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 043 492. The evidence consisted of annexes to a brief filed by Dyson's representative in US proceedings, which SharkNinja argued was relevant to show contradictory positions taken by Dyson regarding claim interpretation. The court held that SharkNinja failed to convincingly demonstrate the relevance of the new evidence and that submissions in other proceedings do not render a party's positions in the present case contradictory.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 043 492, a patent dispute between SharkNinja (appellant/defendant) and Dyson Technology Limited (respondent/claimant). The Court of Appeal rejected Dyson's application to disregard several grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja, finding them sufficiently indicated in the statement of grounds. However, the court excluded two new pieces of evidence (FBD 27 and FBD 28) submitted by SharkNinja, finding they were not convincingly shown to be relevant and were submitted with undue delay.
Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the confirmation of an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices. The Court of Appeal rejected Mammut's appeal, finding that Ortovox had not engaged in unreasonable delay in seeking interim measures and that the requirements for provisional relief were met. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and to pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices (LVS-Geräte). Ortovox had obtained an ex parte interim injunction against Mammut before the Local Division Düsseldorf, which was confirmed on review. Mammut appealed the confirmation, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Mammut had waited too long before seeking review and that the interim measures were justified. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH filed a revocation action against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Court of First Instance seeking revocation of European Patent No. EP 3065184. Before the Statement for Revocation had been served on the Defendant, the Claimant withdrew the claim and requested reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid.
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.