Patricia Rombach
86 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
86 cases indexed | Page 3 of 3
Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, ARM Limited, Arm France SAS, SVF Holdco, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited v.ICPillar LLC
This appeal concerned a security for costs order granted in favor of ARM Limited and its affiliated entities against ICPillar LLC in underlying infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3000239. ICPillar sought to have the security order set aside and initially requested confidentiality over an insurance policy (Exhibit 4) attached to its Statement of Appeal. After the Court of Appeal rejected the confidentiality request and the unredacted document was made available, ICPillar sought permission to amend its own Statement of Appeal and grounds of appeal to maintain equality of arms. The Court of Appeal rejected this request, holding that ICPillar controlled the redactions from the outset and could have lodged redacted grounds of appeal initially.
Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, ARM Limited, Arm France SAS, SVF Holdco, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited v.ICPillar LLC
This case concerns an appeal in a main infringement action involving patent EP 3000239, where ICPillar appealed an order requiring it to provide adequate security for legal costs. ICPillar sought to keep parts of an insurance policy (Exhibit 4) confidential, but the Court of Appeal rejected this request. The Court then addressed ICPillar's argument that it should be allowed to amend its Statement of appeal to maintain equality of arms, which the Court also rejected.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Apple entities (the appellants and defendants in the main infringement proceedings) to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the time limit for filing the respondent's appeal response under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involves Apple's appeal of the Court of First Instance President's order dated June 18, 2024, which rejected Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2263098). The Court of Appeal rejected the acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in acceleration did not outweigh Ona Patents' interest in orderly proceedings.
Arm Germany GmbH, Arm lreland Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited, ARM Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, SVF Holdco, Simulity Labs Limited v.Respondent
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.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal filed by 10x Genomics against an order of the Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) in proceedings involving EP 2 697 391, where 10x's application for provisional measures against Curio Bioscience was partly dismissed. After Curio filed its response raising questions of admissibility and necessity of the appeal but did not lodge a cross-appeal, 10x requested withdrawal of its appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal with Curio's consent and agreed with both parties that the determination of cost reimbursement should be deferred until a final decision in the main proceedings on the merits before the Court of First Instance.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This order concerns an application by Curio Bioscience Inc. under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that a non-appealed R.262A RoP order by the Court of First Instance restricting access to certain information continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that no new protective order is necessary when the same already-protected information is contained in documents lodged in the appeal. The Court accordingly found Curio's request for a new protective order to be superfluous.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
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.Respondent
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
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.Respondent
Nera Innovations Ltd. sought partial withdrawal of its appeal against two of four Xiaomi respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH), while continuing the appeal against Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. The appeal concerned a first-instance order from the Local Chamber Hamburg that had rejected Nera's requests to serve the complaint on two defendants via Xiaomi Germany. The Court of Appeal considered whether the partial withdrawal should be permitted, taking into account whether the statement of appeal grounds had already been served on the affected respondents and whether they had a legitimate interest in a decision being rendered in relation to them.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
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 Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Respondent
This order of the Court of Appeal concerned Texas Instruments' request for expedition of an appeal against the Court of First Instance's denial of their application for security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA in underlying infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 552 669. Texas Instruments argued that expedition was needed because they continued to incur legal costs defending the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation without adequate security from the claimant, NST. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, finding it insufficiently substantiated and noting that Texas Instruments had not demonstrated a particular interest in shortening the 15-day period for NST to lodge its Statement of response.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
Audi AG filed an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance Local Division Munich that denied Audi's application requesting Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide adequate security for legal costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Concurrently with its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal, Audi requested the Court of Appeal to expedite the appeal proceedings and shorten deadlines. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that Audi had not explained any particular interest in shortening the respondent's 15-day period for filing a Statement of response, and that the request regarding further proceedings was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Respondent
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.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
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, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
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
AIM Sport Development AG appealed a decision of the Local Division Helsinki that dismissed both its infringement action and its application for provisional measures concerning European patent EP 3 295 663, on the ground that the court lacked competence due to an opt-out. The central issue on appeal was whether the two-month appeal period under R.220.1(a) RoP or the fifteen-day period under R.220.1(c) RoP applied. The Court of Appeal held the appeal admissible, finding that the ambiguity in the rules and the incorrect information provided by the Court of First Instance justified applying the longer two-month period, while extending the respondent's time to respond to three months.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning the language of proceedings in a patent infringement dispute. Curio Bioscience Inc. appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance dated February 26, 2024, which had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2 697 391). The dispute arose in the context of a provisional measures application filed by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience before the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Court of Appeal addressed the application under Article 49(5) of the UPC Agreement regarding the use of the patent language as the language of proceedings.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This order concerns an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to confidential information or evidence to certain persons during appeal proceedings. Curio Bioscience Inc., the appellant and defendant in the main proceedings before the Court of First Instance, sought to restrict access to a redacted document (Annex CR-1) filed in support of its appeal against the rejection of its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court of Appeal held that an unappealed order of the Court of First Instance under Rule 262A restricting access to certain information remains in effect after the conclusion of proceedings, including during appeal proceedings, unless otherwise specified.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This procedural appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned the time limit for filing a Statement of Defense after a claim extension to add a new patent. Huawei had originally filed an infringement action on June 1, 2023, based solely on EP 3611989, and later sought to extend the claim to include EP 3678321. The Local Division Munich allowed the extension, prompting Netgear to appeal. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the defendant must be afforded the same time limit to respond to a newly added patent as would apply if a fresh action had been filed regarding that patent.
NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning a procedural appeal filed by Netgear against a decision of the Local Division Munich that separated the portion of the action based on European Patent EP 3678321 from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The central legal principle established is that the principle of due process requires that when a new patent is added to an already pending action, the defendant must be granted the same time limit to file a statement of defense—and potentially a counterclaim for revocation—as would apply if a new action had been filed regarding that patent. During the interim hearing, Netgear conditionally withdrew certain requests subject to Huawei's agreement on an extended three-month response deadline.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Netgear for shortening of time limits (acceleration of appeal proceedings) under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed an order of the Local Chamber Munich that granted Huawei's request to extend its claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321) in the main proceedings, which originally concerned only EP 3611989. The Court of Appeal rejected the application for acceleration, holding that filing on the last day of the applicable time limits did not justify shortening, given the respondent's interests and principles of due process, even though this could result in the statement of defense being filed in the first instance proceedings before the appeal is decided.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp.Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns a procedural request by the Appellants (Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH) for expedition of appeal proceedings, specifically seeking shortening of the time period for lodging the Statement of response pursuant to R.9.3(b) RoP. The appeal was directed against an order of the Court of First Instance concerning the language of the proceedings under R.323 RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request, finding that the interests of the Respondent (Panasonic Holdings Corporation) and principles of due process outweighed the Appellants' interest in expedition, even though this meant the Statement of defence in the main proceedings would have to be lodged in the contested language of proceedings.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp.Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance regarding the language of the proceedings under R.323 RoP. The Appellants (OPPO and OROPE Germany) filed a request on the last day of the time periods under R.224.1(b) and R.224.2(b) RoP for expedition of the appeal proceedings, seeking shortening of the time period for lodging the Statement of Response. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for expedition, holding that despite the procedural inconvenience, the interests of the Respondent and principles of due process required that the Statement of Response be filed in the normal time period, even though this meant the Statement of Defence in the first instance proceedings had to be lodged in the contested language of proceedings.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp.Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a request by the Appellants (OPPO and OROPE) for expedition of the appeal, specifically seeking shortening of the time period under R.9.3(b) RoP for lodging the Statement of response. The request was filed on the last day of the time periods under R.224.1(b) and R.224.2(b) RoP in an appeal against an order concerning the language of proceedings (R.323 RoP). The Court held that the request had to be dismissed in view of the interests of the respondent and principles of due process, even though this meant the Statement of defence in the first instance proceedings would have to be lodged in the contested language of proceedings.
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.