Maximilian Haedicke
23 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
23 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European Patent EP3812870 before the Central Division Paris. Belparts counterclaimed for infringement and applied to amend the patent, but the parties subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement and both applied to withdraw their respective actions. The Court permitted the withdrawal of both the revocation action and the counterclaim for infringement, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the decision to be entered on the Register, with no cost decision issued.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European patent EP3812870 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. Belparts counterclaimed for infringement and applied to amend the patent. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective actions, and the Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order concerns a request by IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH for Belparts Group N.V. to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 500,000 under Rule 158.1 RoP in proceedings involving a revocation action, application to amend a patent, and counterclaim for infringement regarding EP3812870. IMI argued Belparts was economically vulnerable based on a 2023 loss, while Belparts countered with evidence of positive financial results, a sizable patent portfolio, and a binding assurance from its parent group company AFRISO-WERK Georg Fritz GmbH & Co. KG. The Court of First Instance dismissed the request, finding IMI failed to meet its burden of substantiation and proof.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This is a procedural order from the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3812870. Belparts Group N.V. requested under Rule 340.1 RoP that its counterclaim for infringement pending before the CD Paris be heard together with its infringement action pending before the LD Munich. The court rejected the request, finding that allowing it would still result in multiple oral hearings and multiple decisions concerning the same patent, with infringement and revocation actions not being heard and decided at the same time.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerning an application for provisional measures filed by Guardant Health, Inc. against four Sophia Genetics entities based on four European patents. The order sets the date for the oral hearing and establishes a procedural timeline for objections and replies.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This order concerns the release of a security deposit of EUR 25,000 in a revocation action before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court. Following the revocation of Ballinno B.V.'s European patent EP 1 944 067 B1 and the subsequent settlement between the parties, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH requested the release of the security for procedural costs that Ballinno had previously deposited with the Court. Both parties consented to the release, and the Court ordered the transfer of the EUR 25,000 to Kinexon.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision filed by Seoul Viosys following a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings concerning EP 2661892. The Paris Central Division had previously ordered the transfer of the revocation action to the Paris Local Division and directed Photon Wave to bear 80% of Seoul Viosys' legal costs for the preliminary objection proceedings. The Court held the application admissible but only partly well-founded, setting the value of the preliminary objection proceedings at one quarter of the revocation action's value (EUR 500,000) and rejecting the expert costs claim, ultimately ordering Photon Wave to reimburse Seoul Viosys EUR 11,200.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This procedural order concerns an application by Claimant Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH to restrict Defendant Ballinno B.V.'s access to certain information in a cost decision application filed in underlying revocation proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067 B1. The Court denied the application under R. 262A RoP, finding Claimant's arguments too general and the proposed access restriction unduly burdensome, but granted an implied request under R. 262.2 RoP, preventing Defendant and its UPC representatives from disclosing the cost-related information to third parties.
Acer Computer GmbH v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Acer Computer GmbH applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated application-to-amend proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892 B1. The court granted access, finding that Acer had a specific interest due to a related infringement action and that the general principle of public access applies even when proceedings have ended without a decision. The court rejected Nokia's argument that Acer should be restricted from distributing the documents, holding that confidentiality conditions apply only to pending proceedings.
Acer Computer GmbH v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Acer Computer GmbH applied for public access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 661 892, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. Acer had a specific interest as it faced an infringement action based on the same patent. The court granted access to most documents with redaction of personal data, rejected access to certain exhibits, granted Nokia leave to appeal, and suspended the order's effects pending appeal.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order concerns an application by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, a German law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from a terminated revocation action (UPC_CFI_181/2024) involving patent EP2661892. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court granted access to most requested documents with personal data redacted, applying the Court of Appeal's Ocado v Autostore principles, but rejected access to two specific exhibits. The court also granted leave to appeal and suspended the effects of the order pending any appeal.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, a firm of UPC representatives, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for public access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024) concerning EP2661892, a revocation action between HP and Nokia that ended by withdrawal. Nokia opposed the request, arguing the applicant lacked a sufficient specific interest and should not be permitted to distribute the file contents. The Court of First Instance granted access with personal data redacted, finding that the general principle of public access applies once proceedings have ended, and also granted Nokia leave to appeal.
Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Ex Parte
Order
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH filed a revocation action against Ballinno B.V. seeking to revoke European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1, which relates to a 'Method and system for detecting an offside situation.' The patent was owned by Ballinno and was in force in Germany and the Netherlands. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) revoked the patent with effect for Germany and the Netherlands, ordered Ballinno to bear the costs, and set the value of the proceedings at up to EUR 1,000,000.
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.
Aylo Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
Aylo Premium Ltd brought a revocation action against EP 3 822 805 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) and requested that DISH Technologies L.L.C. provide security for legal costs of at least EUR 400,000 under R. 158 RoP, citing insolvency risks within the DISH/EchoStar group. The Court rejected the request, finding that Aylo had not met its burden of proof given the lifting of the going concern qualification, the group's receipt of over USD 8 billion in new funding, and EchoStar's irrevocable declaration to reimburse Aylo's legal costs up to EUR 400,000.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
Ballinno B.V. sought a stay of revocation proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067 B1 pending the outcome of its appeal against the denial of provisional measures by the UPC Local Division Hamburg. The Central Division (Paris Seat) rejected the request, holding that an appeal against the denial of provisional measures does not generally justify a stay of revocation proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP. The court also rejected Ballinno's request for compensation of legal costs.
BEGO Medical GmbH v.CEAD USA B.V., CEAD B.V.
This order concerns a request by the defendant BEGO Medical GmbH to restrict access to its attorney cost estimates (Annexes ES8 and ES9) filed in a nullity action concerning EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court. The court rejected the request to restrict access from the opposing parties (CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V.) under Rule 262A, holding that the claimants needed full access to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of costs under Article 69 UPCA. However, the court granted the request to restrict public access under Rule 262.2, finding that the public's interest in individually negotiated attorney fees generally yields to the party's interest in confidentiality.
Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG v.Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld a decision that an opt-out from UPC jurisdiction was invalid because it was not lodged by all proprietors of all national parts of the European patent. Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (Neo) had argued that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for European patent EP 3876490 was valid, but the Court ruled that Article 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge the opt-out application. The appeal was rejected, and the revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe was allowed to proceed before the UPC.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.Patent Proprietors of EP 3 170 639 B1
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. In response to prior art documents first submitted with the nullity complaint, the patent proprietors acknowledged the nullity claim and surrendered the patent in full. Both parties declared the main proceedings moot under Rule 360 RoP. The court held that it is generally unfair to impose costs on a patent proprietor who immediately surrenders the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity action, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs while granting a 60% refund of court fees.
CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
In a nullity action concerning EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, the claimants (CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V.) requested court-ordered simultaneous interpretation from German into Dutch, alternatively English, for an interim hearing and oral hearing. The court rejected the request for court-funded interpretation under Rule 109(1) RoP, finding that the claimants already had three German-speaking legal representatives who had extensively written in German, and that the language skills of one additional representative did not justify court-ordered interpretation. However, the court granted the subsidiary request for interpretation at the claimants' own cost under Rule 109(2) sentence 2 RoP.
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Ex Parte
Procedural Order
Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG v.Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Toyota's request for a decision by default against Neo Wireless's appeal of an order rejecting Neo's preliminary objection to the UPC's jurisdiction. The court held that Neo had timely corrected formal deficiencies and that the 15-day deadline for filing a statement of appeal under R.224.1(b) RoP runs from the date of service of the decision granting leave to appeal, not from the date of the impugned order.
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.