of the Court
141 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
141 cases indexed | Page 5 of 5
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding patent EP 2 697 391. After 10x Genomics appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) that partly dismissed its application for provisional measures against Curio Bioscience, 10x subsequently requested to withdraw the appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal with Curio's consent and ordered that 10x, as the unsuccessful party, bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited and Others
ICPillar LLC appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Paris) requiring it to provide security for legal costs of €400,000 in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 3000239. ICPillar requested suspensive effect of the impugned order or, alternatively, expedition of the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect and no urgency warranting expedition of the proceedings.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL (Application to Change Language of Proceedings)
Apple entities (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings from German to English before the Local Division Düsseldorf of the UPC Court of First Instance. The patent in suit, EP 2263098, was granted in English. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, finding that the balance of interests favored retaining German as the language of proceedings, given that two of the five Apple defendants are based in Germany, Ona Patents is a small Spanish start-up with limited resources, and parallel proceedings between the same parties were already being conducted in German before the Munich regional court.
Google Ireland Ltd and Google Commerce Ltd v.Ona Patents SL (Application to Change Language of Proceedings)
Google Ireland Ltd and Google Commerce Ltd (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings before the Local Division Düsseldorf from German to English, the language in which European Patent EP 2263098 was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, finding that while English is commonly used in the relevant field of technology, the balancing of interests weighed against changing the language given Ona Patents' specific circumstances, including its contact person's fluency in German and the existence of parallel proceedings in German before the Regional Court of Munich.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Others
Daedalus Prime LLC applied to withdraw its appeal against two of five respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, while continuing the appeal against the remaining three respondents. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the two respondents had a legitimate interest in the appeal being decided because they had been served with the Statement of claim, had responded to the appeal, and would be directly or indirectly affected by the outcome regarding service on affiliated companies.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied their application for security for costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside their appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its Statement of appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal and shortening of deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC. in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP, citing increasing legal costs. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application for security for costs against Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.
Daedalus Prime LLC sought a panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order denying its request for an extension of time to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings concerning EP 2792100. The Court of Appeal confirmed the denial, holding that Daedalus could and should have sought external advice and comprehensively set out its arguments before lodging the Statement of claim, and that CMS issues were insufficient to justify an extension.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether AIM Sport Development AG's appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Helsinki) was timely. The Court of First Instance had dismissed AIM's infringement and provisional measures actions concerning EP 3 295 663 for lack of competence due to an opt-out, and incorrectly stated a two-month appeal period applied. The Court of Appeal held that under Rule 224.1(b) RoP, the correct appeal period for orders under Article 62 UPCA was 15 days, but due to the ambiguity in the rules and the misleading information provided by the Court of First Instance, AIM's appeal was admissible under the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics Sarl v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This order concerns an application by the defendants (Advanced Bionics entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by MED-EL regarding European Patent EP4074373 ('MRI-safe disk magnet for implants'). The President of the Court of First Instance declared the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that the circumstances cited by the defendants resulted from their own strategic choices and did not demonstrate significant disadvantage justifying a change of language.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore AS and Others
This case concerns an appeal by Ocado Innovation Limited against an order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division granting a member of the public access to the statement of claim in infringement proceedings Ocado had brought against multiple Autostore entities. The Court of Appeal addressed two issues: the composition of its panel under Art. 9(1) UPCA, and public access to written pleadings and evidence under R.262.1(b) RoP. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a panel of three legally qualified judges may decide purely non-technical matters, and that the balance of interests favored granting access to the statement of claim.
Abbott Laboratories and Others v.DexCom, Inc
The appellants, a group of Abbott entities, filed an appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP contesting the €50,000 penalty ceiling set by the Paris Local Division's confidentiality order in a patent infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. After learning that the Court of First Instance had not granted leave to appeal, the appellants withdrew the appeal. The President of the Court of Appeal held that without leave to appeal, the appeal was inadmissible from the outset and could not be withdrawn, and accordingly rejected it as inadmissible.
Abbott Laboratories and Others v.DexCom, Inc (UPC_CoA_5/2024)
The Abbott entities appealed a confidentiality order issued by the Paris Local Division in patent infringement proceedings brought by DexCom, contesting the €50,000 penalty ceiling as too low and seeking to raise it to €250,000. The President of the Court of Appeal held that under Rule 220.2 RoP, the appeal required leave from the Court of First Instance, which had not been granted, rendering the appeal inadmissible from the outset and incapable of being withdrawn.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal. AIM Sport Development AG appealed a decision of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Helsinki) that dismissed its actions due to the UPC's lack of competence over European patent EP 3 295 663 owing to its opt-out. The Court of Appeal identified that AIM had lodged its appeal within two months of service, but the applicable time period under R.224.1(b) RoP for appeals against orders under Art. 60 and Art. 62 UPCA was 15 days, and invited both parties to comment on the non-compliance and its consequences.
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.