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.
In this procedural case before the UPC Court of Appeal, 10x Genomics appealed an order from the CFI regarding provisional measures against Curio Bioscience. After requesting withdrawal and receiving consent from Curio, the Court granted the request. The ruling clarifies that even when an appeal is withdrawn by mutual agreement, the withdrawing party (10x) must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, setting a clear precedent for cost allocation in UPC appellate practice.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited et al.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural motions concerning an appeal against a security for costs order. ICPillar LLC sought suspensive effect on the order requiring them to deposit €400,000 and requested the appeal be expedited. The Court ultimately rejected both requests, emphasizing that while Article 74 UPCA provides grounds for granting suspensive effect, such relief must be exceptional. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural appeals should not unduly hinder proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Ltd; Google Commerce Ltd
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Google (the defendants) to change the language of proceedings from German to English. Despite arguments regarding the patent's original grant language and the defendants' international presence, the court ultimately rejected the application. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing interests, particularly protecting smaller entities like the claimant against the convenience of large corporate defendants.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement case concerning EP 2263098. The court ultimately dismissed this application, balancing the interests of both parties. While Apple argued that the technical nature and corporate language favored English, the court found that Ona Patents SL had sufficient reasons—including parallel national proceedings and local resources—to proceed in German.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application to partially withdraw an appeal in an infringement case. The claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to remove two respondents (Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE) from the ongoing appeal proceedings. However, the Court ruled against this withdrawal, emphasizing that even indirect interests—such as those related to service obligations or the course of litigation—constitute a legitimate interest under UPC rules. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural fairness requires all affected parties to be heard.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings. The court found that the arguments presented were too vague and lacked sufficient substantiation to justify shortening any deadlines under R.9.3(b). This order highlights the strict requirements parties must meet when seeking procedural acceleration within the UPC framework.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Audi AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Audi argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The court found that the request lacked sufficient specificity and substantiation, upholding procedural norms and protecting the interests of the respondent, NST.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition made by Texas Instruments during an appeal concerning security for costs. The court rejected the motion, finding that the arguments presented were too vague and lacked sufficient substantiation to justify shortening any deadlines in the ongoing proceedings. This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for requesting procedural acceleration within the UPC framework.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
In a procedural matter concerning an appeal, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings and shorten deadlines. Volkswagen argued that delays were causing increased legal costs related to security for costs. The court ruled that the request lacked sufficient substantiation and specificity, emphasizing adherence to established procedural timelines and principles of proportionality.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Texas Instruments sought to accelerate the appeal process, arguing that delays increased its legal costs while awaiting security for costs. The court ultimately rejected this plea, finding the request too vague and lacking sufficient justification to override standard procedural timelines.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Texas Instruments sought to shorten deadlines due to ongoing legal costs related to the appeal against a security for costs dismissal. The court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the application was too vague and lacked sufficient justification to warrant altering the established timelines.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Audi AG sought to accelerate the appeal process against an earlier dismissal of its security for costs application. The court rejected this request, finding that it was too vague and lacked sufficient justification to warrant shortening deadlines. This highlights the strict requirements for requesting expedited proceedings within the UPC framework.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural order concerning an appeal against a dismissal of a security for costs application, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Volkswagen argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The court found that the request lacked sufficient specificity and substantiation, upholding procedural norms and protecting the respondent's interests.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Audi AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Audi argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b). The court found the request lacked sufficient substantiation and specificity, upholding standard procedural timelines.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for an extension of time to lodge grounds of appeal in the main infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_169/2024). Daedalus Prime LLC sought additional time, arguing the complexity of the legal issues and potential precedent implications. The Panel ultimately denied this request, reinforcing the principle that parties must present thorough arguments proactively rather than relying on procedural delays to gather external opinions.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding the time limit for lodging an appeal against an order from the Court of First Instance (CFI). The appellant, AIM Sport Development AG, argued that the CFI's own 'Information about appeal' stated a two-month deadline, even though the strict rule (R.224.1(b) RoP) mandated only 15 days for certain orders. Applying the principle of legitimate expectations, the Court of Appeal sided with AIM, finding the appeal admissible. This ruling highlights the importance of procedural fairness and how courts must interpret rules when CFI guidance creates a reasonable expectation.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application filed by Advanced Bionics to change the language of the infringement action from German to English, citing international business operations and parallel proceedings. The Court rejected this request, holding that strategic choices or internal group coordination do not automatically satisfy the 'reasons of fairness' required for a language change under the UPC Rules of Procedure. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests must demonstrate a concrete disadvantage directly affecting the defense in the specific case, rather than merely reflecting global corporate strategy.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore Sp. z o.o., Autostore System GmbH, Autostore System AT GmbH, Autostore System AB, Autostore System S.L, Autostore System Srl, Autostore AS, Autostore S.A.S.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope of public access to court documents under R.262.1(b) RoP, specifically in the context of a settlement reached in infringement proceedings. The court ruled that while confidentiality interests must be considered (Art. 45 UPCA), the general interest in justice and public order generally favors granting access unless the requester has a direct, specific legitimate interest in the subject matter. This ruling provides important guidance on balancing transparency with proprietary rights within UPC litigation.
DexCom, Inc v.Abbott Laboratories
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the admissibility of an appeal against a confidentiality order issued by the Court of First Instance. The Appellants (Abbott) sought to challenge the penalty ceiling set in the order but failed because they had not obtained 'leave to appeal' as required by Rule 220.2 RoP. The court ruled that without this prerequisite authorization, the appeal was inadmissible from its inception.
DexCom, Inc v.Abbott Laboratories
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a fundamental procedural requirement: the necessity of obtaining leave to appeal. The case involved an attempt by Abbott Laboratories to challenge a confidentiality order issued in a patent infringement suit brought by DexCom, Inc. Despite withdrawing their appeal after learning that no leave had been granted, the Court of Appeal ruled it inadmissible from the start. This ruling serves as a strong reminder for practitioners regarding strict adherence to procedural rules when filing appeals within the UPC.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural challenge concerning the timeliness of an appeal lodged by AIM Sport Development AG against a CFI decision that dismissed its actions. The dispute centers on whether the 15-day deadline set out in R.224.1(b) RoP applies to appeals seeking provisional measures (like preliminary injunctions under Art. 62 UPCA). While AIM sought to overturn the dismissal based on competence, the Court has paused proceedings to determine if the appeal itself is procedurally admissible due to a missed deadline.
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.