Not provided
4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V. successfully obtained a procedural order from the UPC Court of First Instance to preserve evidence against P.T.S. Machinery B.V. The case revolves around EP4171996, a patent covering modular trailer systems and jack cradles used for heavy lifting. Mammoet alleged that PTS was producing and supplying an infringing 'Mechanical Construction' component. The court granted the application, compelling PTS to provide access to its premises and digital data under strict conditions.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order in the UPC case UPC_CFI_240/2023 involves Oerlikon Textile GmbH &CO KK (Claimant) against Himson Engineering Private Limited (Respondent) regarding patent EP2145848. The court addressed a scheduling conflict raised by the defendant and subsequently issued an order to postpone the Interim Conference. This highlights the UPC's procedural flexibility in managing complex litigation schedules.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This procedural order addressed an application by Eoflow Co Ltd to intervene in a provisional measures case brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. The Court ultimately dismissed the intervention request. The ruling emphasized the UPC's commitment to efficiency and speedy decision-making, particularly in urgent interim injunction proceedings, even when procedural rules allow for third-party participation.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
In this procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC dismissed an application by Eoflow Co Ltd to intervene in a dispute between Insulet Corporation and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. The intervener, who manufactured the disputed product, sought to support the defendant against the injunction request. The Court determined that allowing the intervention would excessively slow down the urgent provisional measures proceeding, especially since the intervener was already involved in parallel litigation before the Central Division.
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.