Patricia Rombach
101 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
101 cases indexed | Page 3 of 4
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
In this appeal concerning security for costs, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the financial vulnerability of a patent enforcement entity (NST) versus a large corporate defendant (Volkswagen). The court ruled that while the relative size of the parties is not a determining factor, the requesting party must provide concrete evidence of an actual risk of non-recoverability or unenforceability. Consequently, the previous order was set aside, and NST was ordered to post security for costs in specific amounts.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical issue of security for costs in complex patent litigation. The court ruled that while the burden is on the requesting party to prove financial risk, the relative wealth of the parties is not determinative. It affirmed that a special purpose entity's business model (like NST) cannot be unfairly penalized by demanding excessive security. This ruling provides important guidance on balancing procedural fairness with cost recovery in UPC proceedings.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited et al.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical issue of security for costs in patent litigation. The court upheld the requirement that a claimant provide adequate financial guarantees to cover potential legal expenses if they lose the case. Despite presenting an insurance policy, the court found it insufficient because its purpose was to protect the insured party (ICPillar), not the applicant (ARM). Furthermore, the court rejected ICPillar's request for a US-licensed bank guarantee, emphasizing that security requirements are based on substantive grounds, not discrimination.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning an order from the Court of First Instance that rejected Microsoft's application to declare Suinno's infringement action manifestly inadmissible. The court ruled that such orders, which deal with case management and procedural admissibility (R.361 RoP), are not subject to discretionary appeal under Rule 220.3 RoP. Instead, they must be challenged via an application for review by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning provisional measures granted by the CFI. The core issue was whether the CFI's finding that Ireland was a Contracting Member State justified granting the injunction there. The court ruled this reasoning was manifestly erroneous, as Ireland had not ratified the UPCA. Consequently, it partially granted the request for suspensive effect only regarding the Irish territory.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC appellate case involved an application by 10x Genomics to reopen proceedings following a ruling that overturned an initial injunction against NanoString Technologies. 10x argued that the original judgment violated fundamental procedural rights, specifically regarding the court's reliance on its own technical expertise rather than party-submitted evidence. The Appellate Court firmly rejected this claim, stating that judicial assessment of facts and evidence is not subject to review in a reopening application, thereby upholding the previous decisions.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding service of process on non-EU defendants, specifically those based in China and Hong Kong. Panasonic challenged the court's requirement for prior Hague Convention service attempts before allowing service via an EU group company (Xiaomi DE). The Board upheld the lower court's stance, emphasizing that corporate structure alone does not satisfy the requirements for valid cross-border service to non-EU jurisdictions. This ruling reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC cases involving international defendants, particularly when attempting to leverage intra-group relationships for jurisdictional purposes.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict rules governing service of process for defendants located outside the EU, specifically in China and Taiwan. The court ruled that a group company within an EU Member State cannot substitute for the statutory seat or principal place of business of its foreign affiliate. This ruling emphasizes that parties must follow established international procedures, such as the Hague Convention, when serving claims on non-EU entities.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of serving legal documents on defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong during infringement proceedings. NEC Corporation sought alternative service methods, such as email or public notice, but the Court rejected these requests. The ruling reinforces that while the UPC has its own procedural rules, they must operate within the framework of international conventions (like the Hague Convention) and respect the national laws of the contracting states. This decision serves as a critical reminder to practitioners about the strict requirements for cross-border service in the UPC.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of serving legal documents on defendants domiciled in non-EU jurisdictions, specifically China and Hong Kong. NEC Corporation sought to use alternative service methods (email or public notice) for its TCL counterparts, but the Court rejected this request. The ruling reinforces that procedural formalities regarding international service cannot be bypassed simply due to the claimant's desire for a swift remedy, emphasizing adherence to both UPC rules and relevant national laws.
Simulity Labs Limited v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the confidentiality of evidence (Exhibit 4) in an ongoing infringement action involving ARM and ICPillar. The Court rejected ICPillar's request to keep the exhibit confidential, prioritizing transparency for the main proceedings. Crucially, the court balanced this by granting both parties opportunities to amend their respective statements based on the newly available information, thereby addressing concerns about equality of arms.
Simulity Labs Limited v.ARM Limited (and associated entities)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application concerning the confidentiality of evidence (Exhibit 4) in an ongoing infringement action involving ARM and ICPillar. The court rejected ICPillar's request to keep the information confidential, deeming the justification insufficient. Consequently, the unredacted version of the exhibit was made available to the Respondents, allowing them time to amend their pleadings.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG et al. v.Ona Patents SL
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Apple seeking to accelerate the appeal process and reduce the deadline for Ona's reply. The court ultimately denied the request, holding that while acceleration was possible, Apple failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to override Ona's right to a fair trial. This case underscores the judiciary's careful balancing act between party efficiency demands and fundamental procedural fairness within the UPC framework.
ARM Limited v.ICPillar LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application concerning service and confidentiality during appeal proceedings related to infringement of EP 3000239. Although the court confirmed that ARM was technically served with ICPillar's statement of appeal, it acknowledged technical difficulties preventing ARM from accessing the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy). Consequently, the Court granted an extension for ARM to file its response, ensuring due process is maintained despite CMS issues.
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.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope and persistence of confidential information protection orders (R.262A RoP) across different procedural stages. The court held that confidentiality obligations established by the CFI remain fully effective in subsequent appeal proceedings, negating the need for redundant protective measures. This ruling provides clarity on how parties must manage sensitive evidence when appealing decisions.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the procedural application of confidentiality rules (R. 262A RoP) during appeal proceedings. The court held that if information was already protected by a CFI order, parties do not need to file redundant requests for protection in the appellate phase. This streamlines litigation by preventing duplication of protective measures.
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.
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.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical procedural requirement for opting out of the Unified Patent Court's jurisdiction. The court ruled that an opt-out application must be lodged by or on behalf of every proprietor holding any national part of the European patent. This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of Art. 83(3) UPCA, ensuring that no single owner can unilaterally remove a patent from UPC competence if co-ownership exists across different member states.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co, Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural issue of partially withdrawing an appeal against multiple defendants in a patent infringement case. Nera Innovations sought to withdraw its appeal specifically against two EU-based Xiaomi entities (NL and DE), arguing they lacked legitimate interest due to prior service of process. The court rejected this request, emphasizing that even if some parties are not directly affected by the procedural change, their right to due process must be protected. This ruling reinforces the importance of considering all stakeholders' interests when managing complex multi-defendant litigation in the UPC.
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.
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.