of the Court
141 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
141 cases indexed | Page 2 of 5
Washtower IP B.V. v.Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision is a purely procedural order granting an extension of time to the Appellants (defendants from the CFI proceedings). The Appellants requested more time to prepare their grounds of appeal due to professional constraints, including mandatory attendance at an EPO hearing. The Court granted a three-working-day extension, emphasizing the principles of due process while ensuring the Respondents' interests were secured by the enforceability of the original order.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal admitted Apple Inc. as an intervener in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings between Ericsson and ASUS/Arvato. The core issue was whether Apple had sufficient legal interest to participate in appeals concerning the confidentiality regime for sensitive license agreements. The court affirmed that intervention is possible even when the matter relates to interim procedural orders, provided a direct legal interest can be demonstrated. This decision clarifies the scope of 'legal interest' under UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), setting a precedent for how third parties can participate in complex litigation concerning trade secrets and confidential information.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd.
This procedural order concerns Apple's successful application to intervene in an appeal brought by Sun Patent Trust against Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd. The core dispute involved the confidentiality regime applied to highly confidential information (HCI) related to licensing agreements. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, recognizing its direct legal interest in protecting its sensitive business data from disclosure to Vivo's employees. This decision is significant for IP practitioners dealing with complex litigation involving trade secrets and commercial interests within the UPC framework.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application by Apple Inc. to intervene in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings between Ericsson and ASUS/Arvato. The court ruled that Apple possessed a legal interest, allowing its admission as an intervener supporting Ericsson's request for a stricter 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the scope of intervention under UPC Rules of Procedure, confirming that interests in interim orders are sufficient grounds for participation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd.
This procedural order concerns Apple Inc.'s successful application to intervene in an appeal brought by Sun Patent Trust against Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd. The core dispute involved the scope of confidentiality regarding highly confidential information (HCI) related to licensing agreements. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple, recognizing its direct legal interest in preventing the disclosure of its sensitive business data to VIVO employees. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms available for third parties whose interests are affected by ongoing litigation.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the scope of claim amendments under Rule 263 RoP. CeraCon GmbH sought to amend its counterclaim for revocation by introducing a new ground of invalidity based on prior art (EP’480). The court denied this request, emphasizing that parties must demonstrate reasonable diligence in their prior art searches. This ruling reinforces the strict procedural requirements governing claim amendments within UPC proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Sun Patent Trust against a confidentiality order issued by the Court of First Instance. The dispute centered on restricting access to highly confidential information (HCI) within ongoing infringement proceedings involving Vivo Mobile Communication. The Court ultimately rejected the request, finding that even if HCI was disclosed, the appeal would not become devoid of purpose because it addresses both access and usage conditions for the sensitive data.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning a confidential information order issued by the Court of First Instance. Sun Patent Trust sought to halt the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to designated employees of Vivo, arguing that continued access would render its appeal pointless. The Court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose and that the claimant failed to establish a risk of irreparable harm.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for rectification filed by Microsoft following a default judgment issued against Suinno. Microsoft sought to amend the decision to include a notice (R. 356.3 RoP) warning that any subsequent default would be final. The Court rejected this application, emphasizing that the subject matter of appeal proceedings is strictly limited to what was requested by the parties. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests must be raised within the scope of the initial litigation or appeal.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for seeking suspensive effect in patent litigation. The court ruled that an application for a stay of proceedings is inadmissible if it is filed before the formal Statement of appeal has been lodged and the associated fees paid. This ruling reinforces the principle that legal interest must be established through proper appellate procedure, even when urgency is claimed.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in patent litigation. The claimant, Sun Patent Trust, sought to suspend an order from the Court of First Instance before formally lodging its appeal. The court ruled that even under provisions allowing for extreme urgency, a formal Statement of appeal and payment of fees are prerequisites for such an application to be admissible. This ruling reinforces the procedural rigor required when challenging interim decisions within the UPC framework.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural applications from Barco N.V., which sought leave to change its infringement claim and requested an exchange of further written pleadings against Yealink. The court denied the request for a claim amendment because it broadened the scope without sufficient justification regarding prior diligence. Furthermore, the application for more written exchanges was rejected as no new facts or evidence were introduced by the respondent. This ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements within UPC proceedings concerning claim amendments and the introduction of new arguments.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
In a significant decision regarding generic drug competition, the UPC Court of Appeal granted provisional measures in favor of Boehringer Ingelheim against Zentiva. The court held that the completion of national health technology assessments and reimbursement procedures for generics can constitute an imminent infringement threat, even before market launch. This ruling reinforces the proactive nature of the UPC's jurisdiction across all member states, providing a strong deterrent against premature generic entry.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Ericsson and Asustek sets the stage for a complex patent dispute. The parties have agreed to proceed with both an infringement action by Ericsson and a counterclaim for revocation by Asustek. The Court has scheduled the interim conference and the main oral hearing, indicating that the case is moving forward toward substantive arguments.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V. and Easee Holding B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an infringement appeal following an out-of-court settlement between Visibly Inc. and Easee B.V. The court formally permitted the withdrawal, declaring the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling clarified the procedural implications of such a withdrawal, specifically addressing the reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.9 RoP. This case serves as an important reminder for practitioners that settlement can lead to formal closure and fee recovery within the UPC framework.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an infringement action concerning solar cell technology. The court ultimately granted the application, requiring the claimant (JingAo) to provide a deposit of € 200,000. The ruling emphasizes that while enforcement difficulties exist in non-EU jurisdictions like China, these do not automatically defeat the need for security; rather, the applicant must demonstrate legitimate concerns regarding enforceability.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural requirements surrounding appeals in revocation actions. It clarifies that a separate court fee is due for an appeal against the main revocation action and any counterclaim for revocation, regardless of how the CFI combines its decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal fees to both parties following the mutual withdrawal of the underlying actions, setting important precedents on procedural costs.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural aspects of a revocation action and its associated counterclaim for revocation. The parties mutually agreed to withdraw both actions, leading to the closure of the proceedings. Crucially, the court clarified that appeals against these two distinct actions require separate court fees, regardless of how the CFI combined the decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal costs based on specific procedural rules.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect in a complex infringement and revocation case. The core issue was the appeal against a CFI order requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs. Given that the main proceedings had been stayed due to the insolvency of the Easee companies, the Court found that continuing the appeals served no purpose. This ruling emphasizes the practical application of procedural rules when external events, such as corporate insolvency, impact ongoing litigation in the UPC.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a case concerning security for costs and the disposal of an action that has become devoid of purpose. The claimant, Ballinno B.V., initially sought provisional measures related to patent EP 1 944 067 but subsequently withdrew these requests on appeal. Consequently, the court disposed of the action while rejecting Ballinno's request to set aside the security for costs. This ruling reinforces procedural principles regarding case abandonment and cost allocation in UPC litigation.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision confirmed a settlement reached between Plant-e and Arkyne regarding the infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 137 782. While the core dispute was settled, the Court issued a significant ruling on procedural matters, specifically granting Arkyne a reimbursement of 60% of its court fees. This case highlights the practical application of UPC rules governing settlements and fee refunds.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope of security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA. The court ruled that a claimant cannot request security for costs in an infringement action, even if they subsequently file a counterclaim for revocation. The core reasoning is that the purpose of security for costs—protecting a defendant from an insolvent initiating party—does not apply when the defense (revocation counterclaim) is merely a necessary response to the initial claim.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a rehearing based on alleged fundamental procedural defects in a prior ruling. Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought to reopen proceedings concerning its patent EP 3 167 888, arguing that the court applied new standards without proper notice. The Court ultimately rejected the application, clarifying that a rehearing is an extraordinary remedy reserved only for truly fundamental flaws, not mere errors of legal reasoning or disagreement with the outcome.
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.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a rehearing filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals against Amgen, challenging an earlier ruling. The court clarified the extremely narrow scope of Art. 81(1) UPCA, emphasizing that a rehearing is not a regular appeal mechanism. The court ruled that procedural errors must be 'fundamental'—so severe they are intolerable to the legal system and would have prevented the decision from being reached—and rejected Alexion’s application.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the mandatory procedural requirements for imposing periodic penalty payments under R. 354.4 RoP. The court ruled that such an intrusive measure must be decided by a panel, not a single judge. Consequently, the appeal was successful, leading to the setting aside of the initial order and referral back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Corning Incorporated v.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.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning the separation of infringement proceedings based on concerns over confidential supply chain information. The defendants (Hisense, TCL, LG) argued that sharing sensitive data among competing entities would violate EU competition law and impair their right to be heard. However, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that procedural economy outweighs the need for separation. It clarified that confidentiality can be protected through existing rules of procedure (R. 262A RoP) and internal party arrangements.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical procedural issue of an action becoming 'devoid of purpose' when a claimant withdraws its urgent requests for provisional measures. The case involved Ballinno B.V., patent holder, and UEFA/Kinexon companies regarding offside detection technology. The court clarified that claimants who take the inherent risk of basing their strategy on temporary events must accept the consequence of bearing costs if the interest expires before a final ruling.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural matters in an appeal concerning penalty payments related to EP 4 238 202. The parties, despite being Danish companies represented by Danish counsel, mutually agreed to change the language of the limited-scope proceedings from Danish to English. The court granted this request, finding it convenient and fair for a quicker adjudication process. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC in adapting procedural rules based on party consent.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent 1 (Helsingborg)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural issues concerning public access to court documents and representation requirements. The court ruled that an individual holding a high-level management position cannot simultaneously act as their own representative in UPC proceedings, emphasizing due process. Additionally, the ruling clarified that cost compensation is generally not available for requests made under R. 262.1(b) RoP regarding public access to the register.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural matters, specifically the requirements for representation and public access to court documents. The court ruled that an individual holding a high-level management position cannot represent their company in UPC proceedings, emphasizing due process considerations. Additionally, the ruling clarifies that applications seeking access to the register generally do not qualify for cost compensation under the UPC rules. This decision is significant for practitioners as it reinforces strict procedural requirements regarding representation and sets clear boundaries on recoverable costs related to public disclosure requests.
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.