Patricia Rombach
101 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
101 cases indexed | Page 1 of 4
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a dispute over the confidentiality of business information disclosed during infringement proceedings. EOFlow sought to classify internal data, such as turnover numbers and pricing, as confidential under R. 262.2 RoP. The court ruled against EOFlow, emphasizing that mere disclosure in litigation does not automatically grant trade secret protection if specific protective measures are absent. This reinforces the strict requirements for maintaining confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Guardant Health against Sophia Genetics concerning a provisional measures proceeding. Guardant sought to suspend the interim award of EUR 400,000 in costs granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI). The court ultimately rejected this request, holding that the appeal lacked the necessary exceptional circumstances to override the general rule that appeals do not have suspensive effect. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for confidentiality concerning information exchanged during infringement litigation. The court ruled that once a party provides information without restriction under a court order, the recipient loses the basis to restrict its use. This clarifies the scope of confidentiality protections in the UPC, emphasizing that specific requests (R. 262A RoP) are needed when disclosure is mandated by the court.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request for access to written pleadings and evidence. The court balanced the general interest in public access against concerns regarding confidentiality, personal data protection (GDPR), and copyright. Ultimately, limited access was granted to the law firm representing one party, provided all personal data was redacted.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd
This UPC appellate decision clarifies the strict application of Article 69(4) EPC regarding cost security. The court ruled that in appeal proceedings, only the appellant is considered the applicant for costs purposes. Consequently, Grundfos (the appellee/claimant in this specific context) was permitted to request security against Hefei (the appellant/respondent). This ruling reinforces the principle that cost security measures are designed to protect the party initiating the legal action from potential non-payment.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural appeal concerning the admissibility of exhibits and submissions during infringement proceedings related to a pharmaceutical SPC. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that it had become devoid of purpose because the underlying matter—the provisional measures application—had already been decided in favor of the appellant (Viatris). This highlights the importance of assessing legal interest when determining whether an action warrants adjudication under UPC rules.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party intervenor (Streithelfer) when the main party withdraws their appeal. The case involved Strabag and Swarco, with Chainzone intervening to support Strabag's position regarding patent EP 2 643 717. When Strabag settled out of court and withdrew its appeal, the UPC ruled that Chainzone’s intervention became legally moot. This decision clarifies strict rules governing third-party involvement in appellate proceedings.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party assisting party (Streithelfer) when the main supported party withdraws their appeal. Chainzone, acting as an assistant to Strabag, sought to continue its own infringement appeal against Swarco. However, because Strabag reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew its appeal, the court ruled that Chainzone's independent legal standing was lost. Consequently, Chainzone's appeal was dismissed without subject matter.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent (EP 3 223 320). The central dispute revolved around whether the patent claims represented an impermissible expansion beyond the disclosure in the original international application. While the court discussed principles regarding translation and scope, it ultimately dismissed the appeal. This outcome is significant as it reinforces the validity of patents even when challenges based on improper claim drafting or scope extension are raised.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent, focusing heavily on the interpretation of prior art and the scope of claims. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim did not impermissibly extend beyond the content of the earlier application. This ruling reinforces strict standards for interpreting disclosures in patent applications, particularly when dealing with translations of international filings.
Dolby International AB v.Roku Inc.
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against infringement proceedings initiated by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. Roku argued that the EPC's structure violated fundamental EU rights, particularly concerning judicial independence and jurisdiction. The Court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that jurisdictional challenges must adhere strictly to the enumerated grounds in the Rules of Procedure. The ruling reinforces the established legal framework governing the UPC's competence and administrative flexibility.
Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against the rejection of its opposition filings. Roku had argued that the UPC's structure and jurisdiction violated fundamental EU rights, specifically concerning judicial independence and the competence allocation under the EPC. The court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that all grounds for opposition must be within the scope defined by Rule 19.1 VerfO. The ruling reinforces the established legal framework of the UPC regarding its jurisdictional powers and administrative flexibility.
Dolby International AB v.Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. Roku argued that the UPC's jurisdiction violated fundamental EU rights and challenged the court's organizational structure. The Court firmly dismissed these arguments, clarifying that jurisdictional objections must adhere to specific grounds under the Rules of Procedure. The ruling also affirmed the Administrative Committee's authority to adapt the UPC's structure as necessary.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In a significant decision regarding patent scope, the UPC Board of Appeal invalidated key claims of EP 3 926 698. The core finding centered on the doctrine of impermissible expansion, holding that a claim cannot extend beyond what was clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application documents. This ruling reinforces strict interpretation requirements for divisional applications, emphasizing that the scope must be traceable to both the initial filing and the parent PCT application. For patent practitioners, this case serves as a strong reminder of the critical importance of precise drafting and disclosure during the prosecution phase.
expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In this UPC appeal, expert klein GmbH successfully challenged the validity of EP 3 926 698 held by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The court ruled that Claim 1 was invalid because it contained an impermissible extension of subject matter. Specifically, features not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application or PCT filing were deemed outside the scope of protection. This decision reinforces strict interpretation principles regarding claim scope derived from initial patent disclosures, a critical point for IP strategy.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH; expert e-Commerce GmbH
This decision from the UPC Board of Appeal addresses procedural matters following an oral hearing in a complex infringement and revocation case. The claimant, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., attempted to submit additional written arguments after the proceedings concluded. The Court firmly ruled that once the oral phase is complete, the matter is ready for judgment, and further submissions are generally inadmissible unless explicitly permitted by the court under strict rules.
RiVOLUTiON GmbH v.Cilag GmbH International
This UPC appeal case concerned RiVOLUTiON GmbH's attempt to suspend an injunction issued by the Local Court Munich against it. Rivolution argued that the original decision contained evident legal errors regarding procedural fairness, damages, and enforcement security. The Appeals Chamber ruled that most of these alleged errors could not be assessed without reviewing the detailed grounds of the initial judgment. Consequently, the request for suspension was denied, meaning the injunction remains in effect until further appeal.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for confidentiality regarding technical data and measurement reports in an infringement case involving traffic signaling systems. The court confirmed that certain non-obvious product properties qualify as trade secrets under Article 58 EPC, provided they are kept confidential. While the court granted protection to specific documents submitted by Strabag, it rejected broader requests from both Swarco (the claimant) and Chainzone (the assisting party), setting clear boundaries on information disclosure in UPC proceedings.
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.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion regarding cost determination following an earlier ruling. Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought to enforce a specific cost allocation, but subsequently withdrew its application due to an administrative error. The court accepted this withdrawal, effectively closing the costs procedure without altering the underlying substantive dispute or the initial cost split.
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.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Easee Holding B.V., and managing director
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect related to a security for costs order issued by the CFI in an infringement action. The court found that the initial order contained manifest errors, specifically regarding the legal basis for requiring security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA. By granting suspensive effect to both Easee's appeals, the UPC ensured that the status quo would be maintained pending a full review of the underlying issues.
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.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge ('Gegenvorstellung') brought by Knaus Tabbert against the Appeal Court's rejection of its request for interim relief. The court ruled that such a counter-submission is inadmissible if it only disputes the reasoning of the rejecting order, not the merits itself. This ruling reinforces strict procedural boundaries within the UPC system regarding appeals and motions for provisional measures.
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.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a penalty payment case stemming from an initial disclosure order in an infringement action involving Philips and Belkin regarding patent EP 2 867 997. The court confirmed the validity of imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance, even if compliance is eventually achieved late. Crucially, it reinforced the obligation to disclose manufacturer prices under Art. 67 EPC, providing clear guidance on procedural enforcement and disclosure requirements in UPC litigation.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision concerns an application by Chainzone Technology to suspend the effect of a judgment against it, which had found it liable for patent infringement. The appeal was filed following a local court ruling that largely favored Swarco, the patent holder. The Board ultimately rejected Chainzone's request for suspension, citing insufficient substantiation in its legal arguments regarding the interpretation of the patent claim.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses an application for interim relief concerning patent infringement. The court ruled that the requirement for a security deposit to ensure enforcement is not automatic and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the lower court. The ruling emphasizes that parties should raise all relevant facts, including financial vulnerabilities, during the initial proceedings rather than relying solely on them in an appeal.
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.
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.