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
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against an unnamed Appellant who had appealed an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague concerning EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had initially declared micro-enterprise status to qualify for a reduced court fee but failed to substantiate his status as a small enterprise when ordered to do so, and did not pay the additional fees imposed. The Court denied the Appellant's requests to waive the additional fee and for legal aid, closed the appeal by default, and ordered the Appellant to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court considered Total Semiconductor's request for discretionary review of an order by the Mannheim Local Division's judge-rapporteur requiring Total Semiconductor to provide €600,000 in security for costs. The central issue was whether a judge-rapporteur has the competence to issue an order on security for costs and deny leave to appeal, or whether such an order must be adopted by a panel. The Court of Appeal allowed leave to appeal on this procedural question but expressly excluded the substantive matter of security for costs from the scope of review.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had issued a preliminary injunction against Magna but exempted its supply obligations for five BMW models. Magna sought rectification, arguing the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was inadvertently omitted, which the Court of First Instance denied. The Standing Judge of the Court of Appeal granted Magna's renewed application for suspensive effect, suspending the impugned order's effect regarding the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model until the competent panel of the Court of Appeal decides on the matter.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
Order
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Article 83(4) UPCA regarding the withdrawal of an opt-out from the UPC's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to proceedings commenced prior to it. Consequently, the Court set aside the Court of First Instance's orders dismissing AIM's infringement action and provisional measures request, and referred the actions back to the Court of First Instance for further adjudication.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether the withdrawal of an opt-out under Article 83(4) UPCA is ineffective when national court proceedings were commenced prior to the transitional period. The Court held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to pre-existing national proceedings. Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the Court of First Instance's orders and referred the infringement action and provisional measures application back for further adjudication.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that refused to declare Suinno's patent infringement action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP, based on an alleged lack of independence of Suinno's representative. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that the manifest inadmissibility standard under R. 361 RoP must be reserved for clear-cut cases and that Microsoft failed to demonstrate that discretionary review was necessary, particularly since the independence issue was already the subject of a pending appeal.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's request for discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that granted Microsoft's request for security for costs and declared Suinno's own request for security inadmissible. The Court of Appeal held that Suinno was required to first request the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal before seeking discretionary review, and since Suinno failed to do so, its request was inadmissible.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Volkswagen AG's request for rectification of a prior order that had directed Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in three related proceedings. Volkswagen sought to have the order rectified to include a notification under R.158.4 RoP that failure to provide security could result in a decision by default under R.355 RoP. The Court of Appeal declined rectification but issued a separate order providing the required notification to NST.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning notification pursuant to Rule 158.4 RoP in proceedings involving three European patents. Audi AG had requested rectification of a prior order that required NST to provide security for costs, seeking inclusion of a notification that failure to provide security could result in a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The Court declined to rectify the original order but provided the notification separately to NST.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Volkswagen AG's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to dismiss infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Volkswagen had raised preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and the validity of opt-out withdrawals, and had sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP on grounds that NST lacked standing and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to defer preliminary objections to the main proceedings, and that Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and does not require a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the President of the Court of First Instance that had rejected Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 263 098. The Court of Appeal held that fairness required English to be used as the language of proceedings, given that the patent was granted in English, Apple's internal working language and technical support were in English, and Ona Patents would not face any disadvantage from a change to English.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Audi AG's appeal against orders of the Munich Local Division that had dismissed Audi's preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP in three parallel patent infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Audi had argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over damages claimed in the UK and Northern Ireland, that the opt-out withdrawal was invalid due to lack of power of attorney, that NST lacked standing for pre-acquisition damages, and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the timing of preliminary objection decisions is within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and not for evaluating the sufficiency of claim substantiation.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Audi AG's applications for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court held that NST, a small US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity with only two employees, no physical assets, and limited funding, failed to provide sufficient comfort that a possible cost order would be recoverable. The Court ordered NST to provide security for costs in amounts of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000, and EUR 300,000 in the three related proceedings, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank, within three weeks of service.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This appeal concerned a dispute over European patent EP 2 044 709 B1, which had effect only in Germany. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that while Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply to UPC proceedings during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, they did not require the UPC to decline jurisdiction because the German revocation action and the UPC proceedings did not involve the same parties. However, the Court of Appeal granted Mala's auxiliary request to stay the UPC revocation proceedings pending a final decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the parallel German revocation proceedings.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Volkswagen AG's requests for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity. The Court held that NST's failure to provide sufficient comfort regarding its ability to cover potential cost orders justified ordering security, and that the relative financial positions of the parties are not a criterion under R.158 RoP. NST was ordered to provide security of EUR 100,000 in two cases and EUR 300,000 in the third, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank within three weeks.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited & Others
ICPillar LLC appealed a Court of First Instance order requiring it to provide security for costs (EUR 400,000) in its patent infringement action against ARM entities before the Paris Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the Insurance Policy submitted for the first time on appeal would be disregarded under R.222.2 RoP, and that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank did not constitute adequate security under R.158 RoP.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification (Procedural Application concerning Allocation of Technically Qualified Judge)
This procedural order concerns an application by the Magna entities (defendants in the main proceedings) for a review of the allocation of a technically qualified judge (TQJ) in proceedings where Valeo Electrification had sought provisional measures based on EP 3 320 604 B1. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, holding that parties cannot suggest the technical background of an allocated judge, and the only permissible ground for objecting to a judge is partiality under Article 7.4 UPCA.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, and Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by Kinexon companies and UEFA for security for costs in appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. The court ruled that R.158 RoP and R.222.2 RoP are applicable to the Court of Appeal, and ordered Ballinno to provide security of €25,000 within two weeks, finding that Ballinno's financial situation raised legitimate concerns about the recoverability of any cost order.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Microsoft's request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. Microsoft had sought review of a judge-rapporteur's order dated 2 July 2024 that rejected Microsoft's application under Rule 361 RoP to declare Suinno's patent infringement action manifestly inadmissible. The Court held that the request was inadmissible because the impugned order was a case management order issued by the judge-rapporteur, which can only be appealed if first reviewed by a panel under Rule 333.1 RoP.
Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect under R.223 RoP in a patent dispute concerning EP 2 713 879. The appellants (Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) appealed a preliminary injunction order issued by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court of Appeal found the first instance order manifestly erroneous insofar as it extended to Ireland, since Ireland had signed but not ratified the UPCA and was therefore not a Contracting Member State.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company & Ors.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a procedural question concerning the effective date of service of the Appellant's Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings related to EP 3167888. The Appellant had uploaded the Statement of grounds to the Respondents' representative's German special electronic lawyer's mailbox (beA) on 27 July 2024, while the Court notified the Respondents via the Case Management System (CMS) on 29 July 2024. The Court held that under Rule 278.1 and 2 RoP, written pleadings are served by the Registry through the electronic CMS, and prior inter-party communication via another electronic system such as beA does not constitute effective service. The Court ordered that service of the Statement of grounds of appeal was effected on 29 July 2024.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request for expedition of its appeal against an order of the Hamburg Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning EP 3167888. The court held that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time limit for the respondent's statement of response, and that Alexion's arguments about seeking patent protection quickly and the appeal involving a purely legal issue were insufficient.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company & Others
Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision of the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court that dismissed its application for provisional measures against multiple Amgen entities concerning EP 3167888. Alongside its appeal, Alexion requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under Rule 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time period for lodging the statement of response.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three Asian TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal held that service by email to a person not authorized to accept service, and public service by written notice displayed at the court's premises, were not permissible at this stage of the proceedings. The appeal was rejected, with the Court confirming that Hague Convention service attempts should normally be made before alternative methods of service can be employed.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that service by email to a person not authorised to accept service, or by public notice at the Local Division's premises, was not permissible at this stage, and that Hague Convention service methods should normally be attempted first before alternative methods could be employed.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Others v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (Language of Proceedings Order)
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH filed an infringement action against Tandem Diabetes Care entities and VitalAire GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg based on European Patent EP 2196231. The defendants requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that when balancing of interests is equal between international parties, the position of the defendant is the decisive factor.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco (UK) Limited
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns an application by ICPillar LLC under R.262A RoP for confidentiality regarding Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal in proceedings concerning patent EP 3000239. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request for confidentiality, finding the reasons insufficient to justify protection of the information. The Court then addressed procedural consequences, granting ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response while rejecting ICPillar's argument that this created an equality of arms issue.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco (UK) Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an application under R.262A RoP for confidentiality in appeal proceedings related to a security for costs order. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request to keep certain parts of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal confidential, and ordered that the unrestricted version be made available to ARM without any duty of confidentiality. The Court also gave ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response but rejected ICPillar's request to amend its own Statement of appeal, finding no equality of arms issue.
ARM Limited and Others v.ICPillar LLC
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by ARM under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. ARM sought a declaration that ICPillar's Statement of grounds of appeal had not been served, or alternatively, an extension of the deadline for lodging its Statement of response. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request but granted the alternative request, ordering that the time period for ARM's Statement of response would end 15 days after the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) was made available to ARM's representative.
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.