Patricia Rombach
101 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
101 cases indexed | Page 3 of 4
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Audi AG's applications for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court held that NST, a small US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity with only two employees, no physical assets, and limited funding, failed to provide sufficient comfort that a possible cost order would be recoverable. The Court ordered NST to provide security for costs in amounts of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000, and EUR 300,000 in the three related proceedings, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank, within three weeks of service.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Volkswagen AG's requests for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity. The Court held that NST's failure to provide sufficient comfort regarding its ability to cover potential cost orders justified ordering security, and that the relative financial positions of the parties are not a criterion under R.158 RoP. NST was ordered to provide security of EUR 100,000 in two cases and EUR 300,000 in the third, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank within three weeks.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited & Others
ICPillar LLC appealed a Court of First Instance order requiring it to provide security for costs (EUR 400,000) in its patent infringement action against ARM entities before the Paris Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the Insurance Policy submitted for the first time on appeal would be disregarded under R.222.2 RoP, and that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank did not constitute adequate security under R.158 RoP.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Microsoft's request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. Microsoft had sought review of a judge-rapporteur's order dated 2 July 2024 that rejected Microsoft's application under Rule 361 RoP to declare Suinno's patent infringement action manifestly inadmissible. The Court held that the request was inadmissible because the impugned order was a case management order issued by the judge-rapporteur, which can only be appealed if first reviewed by a panel under Rule 333.1 RoP.
Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect under R.223 RoP in a patent dispute concerning EP 2 713 879. The appellants (Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) appealed a preliminary injunction order issued by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court of Appeal found the first instance order manifestly erroneous insofar as it extended to Ireland, since Ireland had signed but not ratified the UPCA and was therefore not a Contracting Member State.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against five defendants, including Chinese and Taiwanese entities, seeking to serve the Statement of claim on the Chinese Xiaomi companies via Xiaomi Germany and on MediaTek (Taiwan) via MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The Local Division dismissed the request, holding that service must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected Daedalus's appeal, confirming that group companies in Contracting Member States cannot automatically be treated as statutory seats, central administrations, or principal places of business of defendants domiciled in China or Taiwan, and that Hague Convention methods (for China) and diplomatic/consular channels (for Taiwan) must first be attempted.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against several Xiaomi entities, including Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. (based in China), and Xiaomi H.K. Limited (based in Hong Kong). Panasonic sought to serve these Asian Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, a sister company within the same corporate group. The Court of Appeal dismissed Panasonic's appeal, holding that a defendant company in China or Hong Kong cannot be served through a group company in a contracting member state without further justification, and that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention must generally be made before alternative service methods can be employed.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected as inadmissible an application by 10x Genomics and Harvard College for re-examination of proceedings (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens) under R.245 RoP. The application sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's earlier decision overturning a preliminary injunction in favor of 10x regarding EP 4108782. The court held that the phrase indicating assessment by a technically qualified court did not constitute use of personal judicial opinion as evidence, and that the cost order in the interim proceedings had a proper legal basis under R.242.1 RoP.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three Asian TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal held that service by email to a person not authorized to accept service, and public service by written notice displayed at the court's premises, were not permissible at this stage of the proceedings. The appeal was rejected, with the Court confirming that Hague Convention service attempts should normally be made before alternative methods of service can be employed.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that service by email to a person not authorised to accept service, or by public notice at the Local Division's premises, was not permissible at this stage, and that Hague Convention service methods should normally be attempted first before alternative methods could be employed.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco (UK) Limited
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns an application by ICPillar LLC under R.262A RoP for confidentiality regarding Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal in proceedings concerning patent EP 3000239. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request for confidentiality, finding the reasons insufficient to justify protection of the information. The Court then addressed procedural consequences, granting ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response while rejecting ICPillar's argument that this created an equality of arms issue.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco (UK) Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an application under R.262A RoP for confidentiality in appeal proceedings related to a security for costs order. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request to keep certain parts of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal confidential, and ordered that the unrestricted version be made available to ARM without any duty of confidentiality. The Court also gave ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response but rejected ICPillar's request to amend its own Statement of appeal, finding no equality of arms issue.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated July 11, 2024, concerning Apple's request to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the deadline for Ona Patents SL to file its response to the appeal. The court rejected Apple's acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in expediting the proceedings did not outweigh Ona's interests in a proper proceeding. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action by Ona against Apple based on EP 2 263 098, and Apple's prior request to change the procedural language from German to English, which had been rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance.
ARM Limited and Others v.ICPillar LLC
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by ARM under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. ARM sought a declaration that ICPillar's Statement of grounds of appeal had not been served, or alternatively, an extension of the deadline for lodging its Statement of response. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request but granted the alternative request, ordering that the time period for ARM's Statement of response would end 15 days after the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) was made available to ARM's representative.
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.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Curio Bioscience's application for a new order restricting access to confidential information (R.262A RoP) in the appeal proceedings. The court held that a non-appealed R.262A order issued by the Court of First Instance continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, making a new protective order unnecessary when the same information is contained in another document lodged in the appeal. The Registry was instructed to grant access to the unredacted Statement of response only to the persons named in the existing CFI order.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Curio Bioscience's application for a new order restricting access to confidential information under R.262A RoP in the appeal proceedings. The court held that a non-appealed R.262A order from the Court of First Instance continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, making a new protective order superfluous when the same information is already protected. The Registry was instructed to grant access to the unredacted Statement of response only to the persons named in the existing CFI order of 11 March 2024.
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.
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.
Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG v.Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld a decision that an opt-out from UPC jurisdiction was invalid because it was not lodged by all proprietors of all national parts of the European patent. Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (Neo) had argued that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for European patent EP 3876490 was valid, but the Court ruled that Article 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge the opt-out application. The appeal was rejected, and the revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe was allowed to proceed before the UPC.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Others
Nera Innovations Ltd. appealed a decision of the Local Chamber Hamburg rejecting its request to serve the complaint on two Chinese Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Germany. After filing the appeal, Nera sought partial withdrawal of the appeal against the two European Xiaomi entities (Netherlands and Germany), seeking to continue the appeal only against the Chinese entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the partial withdrawal, holding that Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE had a legitimate interest in remaining in the appeal proceedings since they had already been served and had filed responses.
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.
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.