Patricia Rombach
101 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
101 cases indexed | Page 4 of 4
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
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether AIM Sport Development AG's appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Helsinki) was timely. The Court of First Instance had dismissed AIM's infringement and provisional measures actions concerning EP 3 295 663 for lack of competence due to an opt-out, and incorrectly stated a two-month appeal period applied. The Court of Appeal held that under Rule 224.1(b) RoP, the correct appeal period for orders under Article 62 UPCA was 15 days, but due to the ambiguity in the rules and the misleading information provided by the Court of First Instance, AIM's appeal was admissible under the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) that had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The appeal concerned proceedings in which 10x Genomics sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience regarding EP 2 697 391. The Court of Appeal held that the lower court's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of fairness under Article 49(5) EPGÜ and ordered English as the language of proceedings.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Curio Bioscience's application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to confidential information to certain persons during appeal proceedings. The court rejected the application as superfluous, holding that the Local Division Düsseldorf's final confidentiality order of March 11, 2024, which was not appealed, already extended to the appeal proceedings and adequately protected the information in question.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed an appeal by Netgear concerning the deadline for filing a Statement of Defense after Huawei extended its infringement action to include a second patent (EP 3678321). The Court held that due process requires the defendant to have the same time to respond to an added patent as if a new action had been filed, and set the defense deadline to April 18, 2024, running from the date of the Local Division's confirmation order (January 18, 2024) rather than from the earlier judge-rapporteur's order.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the deadline for a defendant's response after a claim extension adding a new patent (EP 3678321) to an already pending infringement action. The Court of Appeal held that due process requires the defendant to have the same time to respond to the newly added patent as if a new action had been filed, and set aside the Court of First Instance's ruling that the response period began on December 11, 2023, instead fixing the deadline at April 18, 2024.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's request for 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 Division Munich that separated the claim based on EP 3678321 from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1. The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening of time limits, finding that granting it would not adequately consider Huawei's interest in adequate preparation time and would violate principles of proportionality, fairness, and equity.
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's application for acceleration of appeal proceedings and shortening of time limits under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed a decision of the Local Division Munich that allowed Huawei to extend its infringement claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening the time limit for filing the response to the appeal, finding that granting the request would prejudice Huawei's right to adequate preparation time and would conflict with principles of proportionality, fairness, and due process.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the Appellants' (OPPO and OROPE) request for expedition of appeal proceedings. The Appellants had sought a shortened deadline for the Respondent's (Panasonic) Statement of response in connection with their appeal against an order rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court held that granting the request would unfairly prejudice the Respondent's right to prepare its response, outweighing the Appellants' interest in filing their Statement of defence in English before the 22 December 2023 deadline.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the Appellants' (OPPO and OROPE) request for expedition of appeal proceedings and shortening of the time period for the Respondent to lodge a Statement of response. The Appellants had appealed an order of the Court of First Instance rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings from German to English, and sought an expedited decision before 22 December 2023, the deadline for filing their Statement of defence in the main proceedings.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the Appellants' (OPPO and OROPE) request for expedition of their appeal against a Court of First Instance order rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court held that granting the request would give the Respondent only four working days to respond, insufficiently accounting for the Respondent's interests and the principles of proportionality, fairness, and equity.
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.