of the Court of
141 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
141 cases indexed | Page 4 of 5
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal challenging a provisional measures order, but ultimately focused on procedural compliance regarding court fees. The Appellant failed to pay the required remainder and penalty fees after being ordered to provide evidence of his small enterprise status. Consequently, the Court issued a decision by default against the Appellant, dismissing the appeal. This case highlights the strict adherence UPC courts maintain to procedural deadlines and financial obligations.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the scope of judicial competence, specifically whether a judge-rapporteur can unilaterally impose security for costs and deny leave to appeal. The court ruled that while case management orders are generally not directly appealable, the underlying issue raised an important access to justice question about judicial authority. By allowing limited leave to appeal on this procedural point, the Court ensured that fundamental questions of procedure could be addressed by a panel.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This appeal concerns a dispute over the scope of a preliminary injunction issued against Magna by the CFI, specifically regarding whether the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was correctly exempted from supply obligations. Magna sought suspensive effect to prevent enforcement on this specific model while its appeal proceeded. The Court of Appeal Standing Judge granted an interim order suspending the relevant part of the injunction, recognizing Magna’s interest in maintaining the status quo until a full panel decision is reached.
Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
In a significant procedural ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to an order issued by the CFI. The dispute involved Magna International and Valeo Electrification regarding patent EP 3 320 602, which covers technology used in BMW models. Magna successfully argued that the original injunction contained a clear error—an 'obvious slip'—by omitting a specific model from its exceptions. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to correct procedural errors and prioritize maintaining the status quo when such errors threaten fundamental fairness.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical point regarding the transitional regime: whether prior national court proceedings can block an effective withdrawal of an opt-out. The Court held that Art. 83(4) UPCA only restricts actions brought during the transitional period, meaning pre-transitional litigation does not invalidate a subsequent opt-out withdrawal. This ruling provides significant clarity and relief for patent holders seeking to utilize the UPC system after initially opting out.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical point regarding the transitional regime: whether prior national court proceedings can block an opt-out withdrawal. The Court held that only actions brought during the transitional period count against the ability to withdraw, thereby validating AIM's attempt to re-enter the UPC system for its patent. This ruling significantly eases the burden on patentees seeking to utilize the UPC after having previously engaged with national courts.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Microsoft Corporation to review an order dismissing its application that Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action was manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued the lack of independence of Suinno’s representative made the case clearly bound to fail under R. 361 RoP. The Court ultimately dismissed Microsoft's request, emphasizing that 'manifest inadmissibility' requires a clear-cut situation and should not be used for general disputes over legal interpretation.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal order addressed a procedural challenge brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against an earlier CFI order concerning security for costs. Suinno sought discretionary review, arguing that the original CFI order failed to properly indicate its right to appeal under UPCA rules. The Court ultimately dismissed the request, emphasizing strict adherence to the appellate procedure.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural point regarding the notification of default judgment risks. The court clarified that when ordering a party to provide security for costs, the warning about potential default proceedings (under R.355 RoP) does not need to be embedded in the main operative text of the order. Instead, it can be communicated through a separate judicial order. This ruling provides clarity on procedural requirements within UPC actions, particularly concerning cost security and its implications for case progression.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural point concerning the notification requirements under Rule R.158.4 RoP regarding security for costs. The court clarified that even if an initial order specifies a deadline for providing security, the warning about potential default judgment (under R.355 RoP) does not need to be embedded within that original operative text. Instead, a separate notification order is sufficient to ensure procedural fairness and compliance.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses preliminary objections and requests under Rule 361 RoP in a complex infringement case involving NST and Audi. The court established key procedural boundaries, ruling that R.361 challenges are not suitable for full evidentiary battles. Crucially, the panel affirmed that an initial claim detailing one infringing example while listing others does not automatically fail the 'manifestly bound to fail' test. This decision reinforces the flexibility of UPC procedure while maintaining standards for early case filtering.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Apple and Ona Patents SL. The appeal sought to change the language from German (the patent's granting language) to English, based on the multinational nature of Apple and the technical field's common use of English. The court ultimately sided with Apple, finding that maintaining the German language would disproportionately disadvantage the defendant, thereby upholding the principle of fairness over the claimant's initial choice.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP concerning infringement actions involving automotive technology patents. The court clarified that R.361 procedures are limited and not suitable for comprehensive factual disputes, emphasizing that detailed claims with lists of similar infringing embodiments do not automatically render an action 'manifestly bound to fail.' This ruling provides guidance on the scope of early procedural challenges in UPC litigation.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In this appeal concerning security for costs, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the financial vulnerability of a patent enforcement entity (NST) versus a large corporate defendant (Volkswagen). The court ruled that while the relative size of the parties is not a determining factor, the requesting party must provide concrete evidence of an actual risk of non-recoverability or unenforceability. Consequently, the previous order was set aside, and NST was ordered to post security for costs in specific amounts.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a complex jurisdictional and procedural issue concerning the interplay between national revocation proceedings (in Germany) and an action before the Unified Patent Court. The court confirmed that while the parties in the German and UPC actions were distinct, necessitating the rejection of Mala's primary request to decline jurisdiction, it ultimately granted the crucial auxiliary request for a stay. This ruling provides significant guidance on when procedural fairness requires the UPC to pause proceedings pending outcomes in parallel national litigation.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical issue of security for costs in complex patent litigation. The court ruled that while the burden is on the requesting party to prove financial risk, the relative wealth of the parties is not determinative. It affirmed that a special purpose entity's business model (like NST) cannot be unfairly penalized by demanding excessive security. This ruling provides important guidance on balancing procedural fairness with cost recovery in UPC proceedings.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited et al.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical issue of security for costs in patent litigation. The court upheld the requirement that a claimant provide adequate financial guarantees to cover potential legal expenses if they lose the case. Despite presenting an insurance policy, the court found it insufficient because its purpose was to protect the insured party (ICPillar), not the applicant (ARM). Furthermore, the court rejected ICPillar's request for a US-licensed bank guarantee, emphasizing that security requirements are based on substantive grounds, not discrimination.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG
This procedural order addressed an application by Magna entities seeking to replace the allocated technically qualified judge (TQJ) in a provisional measures case against Valeo. Magna argued for a TQJ with specific mechanical engineering expertise. The UPC President dismissed this request, clarifying that parties are generally bound to their appointed judges and cannot object based merely on technical background unless grounds of partiality exist under Article 7.4 UPCA. This decision reinforces the strict procedural rules governing judge allocation within the Unified Patent Court.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Ballinno B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an appeal proceeding concerning EP 1 944 067. The Kinexon companies and UEFA successfully argued that the respondent, Ballinno B.V., lacked sufficient financial means to guarantee the reimbursement of legal expenses. Consequently, the court mandated Ballinno to provide € 25,000 in security for costs. This ruling reinforces the UPC's ability to manage litigation risk by ensuring that parties with questionable financial standing can be required to secure their potential cost obligations.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning an order from the Court of First Instance that rejected Microsoft's application to declare Suinno's infringement action manifestly inadmissible. The court ruled that such orders, which deal with case management and procedural admissibility (R.361 RoP), are not subject to discretionary appeal under Rule 220.3 RoP. Instead, they must be challenged via an application for review by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning provisional measures granted by the CFI. The core issue was whether the CFI's finding that Ireland was a Contracting Member State justified granting the injunction there. The court ruled this reasoning was manifestly erroneous, as Ireland had not ratified the UPCA. Consequently, it partially granted the request for suspensive effect only regarding the Irish territory.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the effective date of service for an appeal statement in a pharmaceutical patent case (EP 3167888). The core issue was whether direct communication between parties via specialized electronic mailboxes ('beA') could count as valid service. The court definitively ruled that only service effected by the Registry through the official CMS is considered effective under UPC rules.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addressed Alexion Pharmaceuticals' appeal against a prior decision concerning provisional measures. The core issue was Alexion's request for an expedited hearing, arguing that the matter was purely legal and required swift resolution. The Court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing the need to balance due process with the respondent's interests, thereby maintaining standard procedural timelines.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company; Amgen N.V.; Amgen GmbH; Amgen AB; Amgen S.A.S.; Amgen s.r.l.; Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda.; Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding its application for provisional measures against Amgen entities. The appeal sought an expedited hearing process under UPC Rules of Procedure. However, the Court of Appeal ultimately rejected the request for expedition, finding that Alexion's arguments were insufficient to outweigh the respondents' interests in maintaining standard procedural timelines. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain accelerated proceedings within the Unified Patent Court framework.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of serving legal documents on defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong during infringement proceedings. NEC Corporation sought alternative service methods, such as email or public notice, but the Court rejected these requests. The ruling reinforces that while the UPC has its own procedural rules, they must operate within the framework of international conventions (like the Hague Convention) and respect the national laws of the contracting states. This decision serves as a critical reminder to practitioners about the strict requirements for cross-border service in the UPC.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of serving legal documents on defendants domiciled in non-EU jurisdictions, specifically China and Hong Kong. NEC Corporation sought to use alternative service methods (email or public notice) for its TCL counterparts, but the Court rejected this request. The ruling reinforces that procedural formalities regarding international service cannot be bypassed simply due to the claimant's desire for a swift remedy, emphasizing adherence to both UPC rules and relevant national laws.
Simulity Labs Limited v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the confidentiality of evidence (Exhibit 4) in an ongoing infringement action involving ARM and ICPillar. The Court rejected ICPillar's request to keep the exhibit confidential, prioritizing transparency for the main proceedings. Crucially, the court balanced this by granting both parties opportunities to amend their respective statements based on the newly available information, thereby addressing concerns about equality of arms.
Simulity Labs Limited v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application concerning the confidentiality of evidence (Exhibit 4) in an ongoing infringement action involving ARM and ICPillar. The court rejected ICPillar's request to keep the information confidential, deeming the justification insufficient. Consequently, the unredacted version of the exhibit was made available to the Respondents, allowing them time to amend their pleadings.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving drug infusion systems. The Court ruled that despite one defendant being based in Germany, the interests and positions of the defendants collectively justified switching the language to English, which was the patent's granting language. This ruling reinforces the principle that when balancing linguistic interests, the position of the defendants holds decisive weight.
ARM Limited v.ICPillar LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application concerning service and confidentiality during appeal proceedings related to infringement of EP 3000239. Although the court confirmed that ARM was technically served with ICPillar's statement of appeal, it acknowledged technical difficulties preventing ARM from accessing the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy). Consequently, the Court granted an extension for ARM to file its response, ensuring due process is maintained despite CMS issues.
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.