of the Court
141 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
141 cases indexed | Page 2 of 5
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH & Others v.Washtower IP B.V. & Washtower B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) dated 11 September 2025, relating to European Patent EP 3 522 755. The appellants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, citing professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. The Court of Appeal granted a limited extension of three working days, extending the deadline from 26 September 2025 to 1 October 2025.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Apple Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerning Ericsson's appeals against orders of the Milan Local Division that had rejected an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, finding that Apple had demonstrated a legal interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Ericsson and Apple. The Court granted Apple the right to file a Statement in intervention, respond at the oral hearing, and participate in support of Ericsson's position, while rejecting Apple's separate applications to file further submissions.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on 23 September 2025 admitting Apple Inc. as an intervener in appeal proceedings concerning the confidentiality regime for highly confidential information (HCI). The appeals arose from Sun Patent Trust's infringement actions against Vivo, where the Paris Local Division had permitted three Vivo employees to access HCI. The Court held that Apple had a legal interest in the outcome because the HCI included information on agreements between Apple and Sun Patent, and that the potential revocation of the impugned orders could prevent further access and use of such information.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Apple Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerning Ericsson's appeals against orders of the Milan Local Division that had rejected an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, finding that Apple had a legal interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Ericsson and Apple. Apple was granted the opportunity to file a Statement in intervention and to participate in the oral hearing in support of Ericsson.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
This procedural order concerns Apple Inc.'s application to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. Sun Patent Trust had appealed orders of the Paris Local Division that permitted three Vivo employees to access highly confidential information (HCI), including agreements between Sun Patent Trust and Apple. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple's intervention, finding that Apple had a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of the appeals as a party to the agreements containing the confidential information at issue.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review of an order refusing leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413. CeraCon sought to introduce a new novelty attack based on EP'480, but the Court of Appeal found that CeraCon failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance was manifestly wrong in concluding that the amendment could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage under Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure to prevent the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to three designated Vivo employees pending its appeal of a Paris Local Division confidentiality order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 852 468. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose or that its interests outweighed Vivo's interests in timely access to the HCI for filing submissions.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP for its appeal against a Paris Local Division order that granted three Vivo employees access to highly confidential information (HCI) in an infringement action concerning EP 3 407 524. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose if the HCI were disclosed to the designated employees, given the existing confidentiality obligations and penalty provisions in the impugned order.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft filed a request for rectification under R. 353 RoP seeking to supplement a Court of Appeal decision by default against Suinno with a notice under R. 356.3 RoP that any further decision by default would be final. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that Microsoft's request for discretionary review had not included a R. 356.3 RoP notice request, and therefore the Court was bound by the subject-matter of the proceedings as defined by the parties' requests.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning access restrictions to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities, without having yet lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held the applications inadmissible, ruling that suspensive effect cannot be sought before an appeal is lodged, and that even under the extreme urgency provision (R. 223.4 RoP), a Statement of appeal and payment of the appeal fee are prerequisites.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning restrictions on access to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications as inadmissible because Sun had not yet lodged a Statement of appeal or paid the appeal fee, which are prerequisites for applying for suspensive effect even in cases of extreme urgency.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned Barco N.V.'s application for leave to change its claim and request for exchange of further written pleadings in proceedings related to alleged infringement of EP 3 732 827. The Court of First Instance (Brussels Local Division) had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures for lack of urgency. The Court of Appeal denied Barco's application to introduce a subsidiary claim, finding it broadened the original claim without justification for late amendment, and also rejected Barco's requests for further written pleadings and to disregard portions of Yealink's Statement of response.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA
Boehringer Ingelheim, proprietor of European patent EP 1 830 843 covering nintedanib for treating fibrotic diseases including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), sought provisional measures against Zentiva, which held Portuguese marketing authorisations for generic nintedanib products and had completed national pricing and reimbursement procedures. The Lisbon Local Division denied the application, finding no imminent infringement, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that completion of national health technology assessment, pricing and reimbursement procedures can constitute imminent infringement. The Court of Appeal granted a provisional injunction against Zentiva across all UPC territories where the patent is in force, coupled with recurring penalty payments, and ordered Zentiva to pay €199,000 in interim costs.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division in Lisbon of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. Both parties agreed on the appointment of a Technically Qualified Judge and that the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation should be heard together. The Court scheduled an interim conference for 22 January 2026 and an oral hearing for 25 March 2026.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V. and Others
Visibly Inc. appealed an order of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for legal costs in its patent infringement action against Easee. After the proceedings were stayed due to insolvency proceedings against the Easee companies, Visibly applied to withdraw the appeal citing an out-of-court settlement, to which Easee consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Visibly.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and Others v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court allowed Chint's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to order security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 092 759. The Court held that the fact that JingAo Solar is based in China, a non-EU/EEA state, combined with documented difficulties in serving documents in China, supported a finding that enforcement of a cost decision would be unduly burdensome. The Court ordered JingAo to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics SARL v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees for both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and against the counterclaim for revocation, as these constitute separate actions under Art. 32(1) UPCA.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics SARL v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation since they constitute separate actions under Article 32(1) UPCA.
Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V. and managing director v.Visibly Inc.
This appeal concerned cross-appeals against an order of the Hamburg Local Division requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs of EUR 75,000 for the revocation action in proceedings involving patent EP 3 918 974. Following the Local Division's order staying the proceedings in their entirety due to insolvency proceedings regarding the Easee companies, the Court of Appeal stayed the appeal proceedings as they were devoid of purpose during the stay.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 concerning a method and system for detecting offside situations, applied for provisional measures against Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division. The Local Division ordered Ballinno to provide security for costs of €56,000 and subsequently dismissed the application for provisional measures. On appeal, Ballinno withdrew its requests for provisional measures, rendering the action devoid of purpose, and the Court of Appeal rejected Ballinno's challenge to the security order, ordered Ballinno to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and set the value of the dispute for appeal at €100,000.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. v.Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V.
Arkyne Technologies appealed a decision of the Hague Local Division that found it had infringed EP 2 137 782 and rejected its counterclaim for revocation. Before the written procedure closed, the parties reached a settlement, which the Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to Rule 365 RoP. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees paid by Arkyne, in accordance with Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP.
AorticLab srl v.Emboline, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Munich Local Division that had required AorticLab to provide security for costs of €200,000 in an infringement action brought by Emboline concerning EP 2 129 425. The Court held that Article 69(4) UPCA deliberately restricts the right to request security for costs to defendants, and that this rationale does not extend to a claimant in an infringement action seeking security against a defendant who has filed a counterclaim for revocation.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company and Others
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, sought a rehearing of a Court of Appeal decision that had dismissed its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal of provisional measures against multiple Amgen entities. Alexion alleged fundamental procedural defects, claiming the Court of Appeal applied a new claim interpretation standard without hearing it and based its decision on incorrect facts. The Court of Appeal rejected the application as not allowable, holding that Alexion's submissions amounted to mere disagreement with the court's reasoning rather than establishing a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 concerning treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, applied for a rehearing of the Court of Appeal's order dismissing its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal of provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis. Alexion alleged fundamental procedural defects, claiming the Court of Appeal applied a new claim interpretation standard without giving it an opportunity to be heard and based its decision on incorrect facts. The Court of Appeal rejected the application as not allowable, holding that a rehearing is an extraordinary remedy requiring a defect so fundamental that the same decision could not have been reached without it, and that mere disagreement with the court's reasoning does not constitute such a defect.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside a portion of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division concerning the imposition of periodic penalty payments, ruling that such a decision under R. 354.4 RoP must be made by a panel rather than a single judge. The case was referred back to the Local Division for adjudication as a panel on Hybridgenerator's request that periodic penalty payments be imposed on the Respondents for alleged non-compliance with an evidence preservation order.
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Belgium SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V. v.Corning Incorporated
The Court of Appeal dismissed a request for discretionary review filed by Hisense, TCL, and LG against an order of the Mannheim Local Division refusing to separate infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 296 274. The defendants had sought separation to prevent the disclosure of sensitive supply chain information among competing companies, citing potential EU competition law conflicts. The Court of Appeal held that separation is not the only means to protect confidential information, as restricted access under R. 262A RoP and confidentiality agreements between parties are available alternatives.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of EP 1 944 067 relating to a method and system for detecting offside situations, sought provisional measures against Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division in connection with the Connected Ball Technology used at UEFA EURO 2024. After the Local Division dismissed its application for lack of urgency and insufficient proof of infringement, and ordered Ballinno to provide security for costs, Ballinno appealed but withdrew its request for a provisional injunction because the tournament had already taken place. The Court of Appeal held the appeal on security for costs admissible and set out principles for costs allocation, indicating that a party who builds its case on a single event and withdraws after the event passes must generally bear the costs as the unsuccessful party.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
An appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of proceedings. The appellant, Hybridgenerator ApS, appealed an order of the Copenhagen Local Division that declined to order the respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for failure to comply with an earlier order. With the agreement of both parties, the Court of Appeal changed the language of the appeal proceedings from Danish to English, finding that the change would shorten the timeframe for adjudication without causing disadvantage to the parties.
Meril GmbH v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R.262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case between Meril GmbH and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris order granting access, holding that access should not be granted to unrepresented members of the public, and that the Statement of response lodged by an unauthorized representative constituted a decision by default. The Court also rejected Meril GmbH's request for costs.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Central Division Paris that had granted a member of the public access to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825. The Court of Appeal held that access under R. 262.1(b) RoP should not be granted to members of the public who are not represented by an authorised representative, and dismissed the underlying application. The Court also rejected Meril Italy's request for compensation of costs.
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.