Patricia Rombach
101 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
101 cases indexed | Page 2 of 4
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG, Accord Healthcare B.V.
Stadapharm applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from a declaration of non-infringement proceeding between Accord and Novartis concerning EP 2 501 384. The Milan Local Division initially dismissed the request because the main proceedings were still pending and Stadapharm had not demonstrated sufficient interest. After Accord withdrew the main proceedings and Novartis withdrew its objection, the Court of Appeal reversed the impugned order and granted Stadapharm access to the statement of claim and exhibits TW01 to TW36, subject to redaction of personal data in accordance with EU Regulation 2016/679.
Ericsson GmbH and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson withdrew its second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 and the associated appeal before the Court of Appeal, following the Local Division Munich's rejection of the counterclaim as inadmissible based on a preliminary objection by Motorola. Both parties consented to the withdrawal and agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Ericsson.
TGI Sport Suomi Oy (formerly Supponor Oy), TGI Sport Virtual Limited (formerly Supponor Limited), Supponor SASU, TGI Sport Italia S.r.l. (formerly Supponor Italia S.r.l.), and Supponor España SL v.AIM Sport Development AG
This appeal concerned orders of the Helsinki Local Division granting AIM Sport Development AG leave to amend its Statement of claim under R. 263 RoP and to add TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a new defendant under R. 305 RoP in a patent infringement action. The appellants (TGI entities) challenged the orders on grounds of inadmissibility and procedural unfairness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion and that the scope of review on appeal regarding such discretionary decisions is limited.
Aarke AB v.Sodastream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding it had infringed EP 1 793 917 and granting an injunction. Before the appeal was decided, Aarke applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP and sought reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision was necessary since Sodastream filed no comments or cost requests, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Aarke.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appealed a decision by the UPC Local Division The Hague that denied its request for a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. (collectively "Sibionics") for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose monitoring device. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order, finding that the patent claims did not contain added matter, and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sibionics from infringing the patent with its GS1 CGM product, along with information and delivery-up orders.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja sought, and Dyson agreed to, either a suspension of the cost assessment proceedings or alternatively an extension of the deadline to file a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction and ordering Dyson to pay SharkNinja's costs. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests as inadmissible, holding that the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP to file a cost assessment application begins with service of the substantive decision in the main proceedings, not with service of an order on interim measures.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court overturned a decision by the Local Division Hamburg which had held that the UPC lacked jurisdiction to quantify damages following a final national infringement judgment. The court ruled that the UPC has jurisdiction for a standalone claim for determination of damages after a national court has established patent infringement and the infringer's obligation to pay damages, and that this jurisdiction extends to infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the European patent was still in force at that time.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 602. Magna appealed the injunction, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, with no cost decision needed.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604. Magna appealed the order, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was needed.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding confidentiality requests in proceedings related to European Patent EP 4 201 327. Menarini sought to extend confidentiality protections over certain technical information in its Statement of Response to the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's requests for confidentiality (Requests I–III) as superfluous, holding that the existing non-appealed confidentiality order from the Court of First Instance continued to apply to the appeal proceedings.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna against a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had exempted Magna's supply obligations for five BMW models but omitted the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé (F74) from the exemption list. The Court of Appeal found that Magna had clearly identified the 2 Series Gran Coupé in its submissions and that the CFI should have included it in the exemption, ordering the injunction's effect suspended as to that model until the appeal is decided.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division Munich in favor of Dyson Technology Limited against SharkNinja. The dispute centered on European Patent EP 2 043 492, directed to a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a cyclonic separating apparatus. The Court of Appeal set aside the preliminary injunction, finding that Dyson had not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the attacked SharkNinja embodiments infringed claim 1, specifically because the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the accused products used a cyclonic separating apparatus employing centrifugal force as required by feature 1.3 of the patent.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against an unnamed Appellant who had appealed an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague concerning EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had initially declared micro-enterprise status to qualify for a reduced court fee but failed to substantiate his status as a small enterprise when ordered to do so, and did not pay the additional fees imposed. The Court denied the Appellant's requests to waive the additional fee and for legal aid, closed the appeal by default, and ordered the Appellant to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Article 83(4) UPCA regarding the withdrawal of an opt-out from the UPC's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to proceedings commenced prior to it. Consequently, the Court set aside the Court of First Instance's orders dismissing AIM's infringement action and provisional measures request, and referred the actions back to the Court of First Instance for further adjudication.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether the withdrawal of an opt-out under Article 83(4) UPCA is ineffective when national court proceedings were commenced prior to the transitional period. The Court held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to pre-existing national proceedings. Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the Court of First Instance's orders and referred the infringement action and provisional measures application back for further adjudication.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed SharkNinja's application to introduce new evidence (FBD 29) in appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 043 492. The evidence consisted of annexes to a brief filed by Dyson's representative in US proceedings, which SharkNinja argued was relevant to show contradictory positions taken by Dyson regarding claim interpretation. The court held that SharkNinja failed to convincingly demonstrate the relevance of the new evidence and that submissions in other proceedings do not render a party's positions in the present case contradictory.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
EOFlow appealed an order of the Central Division Milan that denied its request to join two parallel provisional measures proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327. EOFlow additionally requested the Court of Appeal to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines so that a decision could be issued before the scheduled oral hearings in the first instance. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that EOFlow had unnecessarily delayed filing its appeal and had not sufficiently taken into account the respondent's right to file a response.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 043 492, a patent dispute between SharkNinja (appellant/defendant) and Dyson Technology Limited (respondent/claimant). The Court of Appeal rejected Dyson's application to disregard several grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja, finding them sufficiently indicated in the statement of grounds. However, the court excluded two new pieces of evidence (FBD 27 and FBD 28) submitted by SharkNinja, finding they were not convincingly shown to be relevant and were submitted with undue delay.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Volkswagen AG's request for rectification of a prior order that had directed Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in three related proceedings. Volkswagen sought to have the order rectified to include a notification under R.158.4 RoP that failure to provide security could result in a decision by default under R.355 RoP. The Court of Appeal declined rectification but issued a separate order providing the required notification to NST.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning notification pursuant to Rule 158.4 RoP in proceedings involving three European patents. Audi AG had requested rectification of a prior order that required NST to provide security for costs, seeking inclusion of a notification that failure to provide security could result in a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The Court declined to rectify the original order but provided the notification separately to NST.
Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the confirmation of an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices. The Court of Appeal rejected Mammut's appeal, finding that Ortovox had not engaged in unreasonable delay in seeking interim measures and that the requirements for provisional relief were met. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and to pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices (LVS-Geräte). Ortovox had obtained an ex parte interim injunction against Mammut before the Local Division Düsseldorf, which was confirmed on review. Mammut appealed the confirmation, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Mammut had waited too long before seeking review and that the interim measures were justified. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in SEP/FRAND litigation. OPPO and OROPE appealed the Local Division Mannheim's refusal to order Panasonic to produce various license agreements. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could change at a later stage.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Chamber Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that, at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, but left open the possibility that a different assessment could be reached at a later stage when FRAND-related issues are addressed.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under R.190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that at the current stage of the proceedings, where the question of basic licensing willingness had not yet been decided, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could differ at a later stage.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Volkswagen AG's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to dismiss infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Volkswagen had raised preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and the validity of opt-out withdrawals, and had sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP on grounds that NST lacked standing and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to defer preliminary objections to the main proceedings, and that Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and does not require a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the President of the Court of First Instance that had rejected Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 263 098. The Court of Appeal held that fairness required English to be used as the language of proceedings, given that the patent was granted in English, Apple's internal working language and technical support were in English, and Ona Patents would not face any disadvantage from a change to English.
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
Google appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court that rejected its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2 263 098). The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the President CFI had incorrectly assessed fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA, and ordered that English be used as the language of the proceedings.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Audi AG's appeal against orders of the Munich Local Division that had dismissed Audi's preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP in three parallel patent infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Audi had argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over damages claimed in the UK and Northern Ireland, that the opt-out withdrawal was invalid due to lack of power of attorney, that NST lacked standing for pre-acquisition damages, and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the timing of preliminary objection decisions is within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and not for evaluating the sufficiency of claim substantiation.
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.