Max Tilmann
18 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
18 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 2 548 648, involving Rematec GmbH & Co KG as the appellant (plaintiff in infringement proceedings and defendant in nullity counterclaim proceedings) and Europe Forestry B.V. as the respondent (defendant in infringement and counterclaimant in nullity). The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding the need to examine dependent claims when the independent claim is upheld, the obligation to issue a final decision rather than remand, and the requirements for ordering publication of decisions under Article 80 EPGÜ. The decision establishes important principles about the scope of appellate review in combined infringement and nullity proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., against expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH. The appeal concerns the assessment of added matter (unzulässige Erweiterung) under Article 123(2) EPC, particularly where the patent was derived from an international application not filed in an official EPO language. The Court of Appeal addressed key legal questions regarding the role of translations of international applications and the standard for assessing disclosures in earlier applications.
expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The appellants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH (part of the expert retail group), appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of October 10, 2024, which had addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal standard for assessing unallowable extension of subject matter (added matter), particularly in the context of a patent derived from a divisional application.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH, Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The appellants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH (part of the expert retail group), appealed against the decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of October 10, 2024, which had addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_764/2024 and UPC_CoA_774/2024) were heard together at an oral hearing on July 11, 2025, with Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. intervening in support of Viosys.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order disregarding a post-hearing brief filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. following the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. The court held that under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, there is no basis for filing further pleadings after the close of written proceedings without prior court approval, and this applies even more so after the oral hearing when the case is ready for decision. The court further held that there is no need to respond in writing to the court's introduction after the oral hearing, as any such response should have been made during the hearing itself.
Meril Gmbh, 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 Juul Labs International, Inc. seeking revocation of European Patent No. EP 3 504 989. Juul Labs filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence based on alleged misidentification, which was rejected and confirmed on appeal. Juul Labs also filed an application to amend the patent and pursued 8 auxiliary requests. The oral hearing was held on 21 November 2024, and the Court delivered its decision on 28 February 2025.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This is a revocation action filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against VMR Products LLC before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance, concerning European patent EP 3 626 092, which relates to vaporizer devices (electronic cigarettes). The claimant seeks revocation of the patent with effect across multiple European territories, arguing lack of inventive step. The patent was filed on 14 March 2014 with priority dates of 12 November 2013 and 10 February 2014, and was also subject to pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office.
SharkNinja Europe Limited, SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by SharkNinja to suspend the cost assessment proceedings or, alternatively, to extend the time limit for filing a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction against SharkNinja and ordering Dyson to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding when the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 of the Rules of Procedure begins to run and the applicability of Rules 150 and 151 when no main proceedings under Rule 213 are initiated.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs, Inc.
1 DECISION of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central division Paris Seat (Section 1) delivered on 17 January 2025 concerning EP 3 430 921 B1 KEYWORDS: Revocation, claim interpretation, clarity, added matter, admission of auxiliary claims CLAIMAN
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
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 International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG 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 order concerning an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 2 043 492, which covers a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a specific handle arrangement. Dyson Technology Limited, as the patent proprietor, sought interim measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal reviewed the first instance decision and, after balancing the probabilities, concluded that it was not more likely than not that the patent was being infringed. The appeal order thus turned on the assessment of the likelihood of patent infringement in the context of interim relief.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC seeking revocation of European patent EP 3 456 214, which relates to vaporizers (electronic cigarettes). The patent had previously been opposed before the European Patent Office, where the Opposition Division confirmed its maintenance with amendments, leading to republication on 22 November 2023. The decision addresses procedural issues concerning the front-loaded procedural system, the requirements for specifying grounds of invalidity and prior art in revocation actions, and the limited circumstances under which new facts and evidence may be introduced in subsequent written pleadings.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an application by SharkNinja to admit new evidence (FBD 29) consisting of two annexes to a brief filed by Dyson's representative in a parallel US proceeding. SharkNinja argued the evidence was relevant to the appeal because it contained Dyson's interpretation of the patent feature regarding an elongate handle, which could undermine Dyson's contradictory denial of disclosure of the 'Power Source' feature in the present proceedings. Dyson opposed the application, arguing the evidence was not decisive and that the submission was culpably delayed.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This order concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding European Patent EP 2 043 492. Dyson Technology Limited, the respondent, requested that several grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja concerning validity attacks be disregarded as they were allegedly not properly specified in the Statement of Appeal. SharkNinja opposed the request, arguing that the grounds were indeed contained in the Statement of Appeal through references to earlier submissions and specific paragraphs. The text of the order is truncated and does not include the final ruling.
Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding the review of an order for interim measures in a patent dispute between Mammut Sports Group entities (based in Switzerland and Germany) and Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (based in Germany). The appeal raised multiple procedural and substantive issues, including the scope of appellate review in interim measure proceedings, the clarity required for appeal grounds, the treatment of late submissions, the assessment of urgency and waiting periods under Rule 211.4, and the applicability of Rule 263 to applications for interim orders. The Court of Appeal issued headnotes establishing important legal principles on these matters, while the full operative provisions of the order were not fully available in the provided text.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH filed a revocation action against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. seeking to revoke European Patent No. EP 3065184 relating to trench processes for backside contact solar cells. Before the Statement for Revocation was served on the Defendant, the Claimant withdrew the claim and requested partial 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.