Judge Profile

Nathalie Sabotier

7 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

7 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent LITIGATION · Mar 27, 2026

ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000005

ONWARD Medical N.V. sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. for alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation, particularly transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation. The Court of Appeal addressed key issues including the permissibility of asserting a patent in a non-registered claim form in interim proceedings, the admissibility of new auxiliary requests under R. 222 RoP, and the determination of intended use under Art. 26 EPGÜ. The appeal was dismissed, and ONWARD Medical was ordered to pay provisional costs of EUR 56,000 to Niche Biomedical.

patent LITIGATION · Mar 11, 2026

A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG, A. Menarini Diagnostics Frankreich SASU v.F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000037

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to EP 1 962 668. The applicants (Roche entities) had obtained an interim measures order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, which the respondents (Menarini entities) appealed. Following an out-of-court settlement, the applicants withdrew their application for interim measures, and the respondents consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.

patent LITIGATION · Mar 6, 2026

Black Sheep Retail Products B.V v.HL Display AB

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000042

This appeal concerned patent EP 2 432 351, where the Local Division the Hague had found Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. infringed the patent and dismissed Black Sheep's counterclaim for revocation. Black Sheep appealed, but subsequently filed a withdrawal of the appeal proceedings under Rule 265(1) RoP, with HL Display's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to Black Sheep under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable to applications filed after 1 January 2026.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 18, 2026

Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000072

Syntorr LP filed a patent infringement action against the Arthrex companies before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 2 670 898. The defendants sought security for costs under R. 158.1 RoP, which was granted in the amount of €2,000,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the orders, holding that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement from an EU-licensed insurer provided adequate protection, and ordered the release of the bank guarantee Syntorr had provided.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 18, 2026

Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000070

Order

patent LITIGATION · Dec 1, 2025

Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000206

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Innovative Sonic Corporation's appeal against an order of the President of the Local Division Munich that changed the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that when deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances must be considered, primarily those related to the specific case and the position of the parties, particularly the defendant.

patent LITIGATION · Nov 6, 2025

Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. v.HL Display AB

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000253

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s (BSRP) application for suspensive effect against an information order issued by the Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings brought by HL Display AB concerning EP 2 432 351. The Court of Appeal held that BSRP failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting suspension, as information orders are necessary to ensure a high level of patent protection and BSRP had not shown manifest error or that the appeal would be devoid of purpose.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →