Peter Blok
24 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
24 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc. and Others (Netgear Deutschland GmbH and Others as Respondents before Court of First Instance)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Huawei's appeals against an order of the Local Chamber Munich granting TP-Link access to certain redacted documents filed in infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321. The court held that TP-Link had a legitimate interest in accessing the documents because Huawei was suing TP-Link for infringement of the same patent, and that Huawei failed to comply with the procedural requirements for claiming confidentiality under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Lepu's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a provisional injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech concerning European Patent EP 2 387 951. The court held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Occlutech's interest in preventing the established imminent patent infringement.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., Luxendo GmbH, Bruker Nederland B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Bruker's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's decision to reimburse only 60% of the court fees paid for Bruker's application for compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP. The court held that a request to lay open books for the purpose of determining compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP forms part of the separate procedure for the determination of damages governed by Chapter 4 of Part 1 RoP, requiring payment of both a fixed fee and a value-based fee. The court further found that combining a request to establish liability with a request to lay open books does not entitle the applicant to a reduced or no fee.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH & Cisco Systems, Inc.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time limits in an appeal proceedings related to EP 2 201 740. The Court of Appeal extended the deadline for Cisco to file its response to the appeal and its cross-appeal by two weeks, until October 3, 2025, finding that Cisco's requested one-month extension was unreasonably long while Lionra's requested one-week extension was unreasonably short.
Network Systems Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
This appeal concerned access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in three patent infringement actions brought by Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) against Qualcomm entities before the Munich Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected both NST's appeal seeking access for an additional US attorney (Peter Krusiewicz) and Qualcomm's cross-appeal seeking to revoke access even for the one US attorney (Daniel S. Stringfield) already granted access by the Munich LD. The Court held that the Munich LD's discretionary decision to grant access to only one trusted US attorney was not flawed, as NST failed to demonstrate that more than one US attorney was necessary.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted EOFlow to withdraw its application for leave to appeal against an order of the Central Division (Milan) that had dismissed EOFlow's application for a cost decision without examination of the substance. Insulet agreed to the withdrawal, and neither party sought a decision on the costs of the leave to appeal proceedings.
Meril Italy Srl, Meril GmbH, and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Central Division, Paris Seat, which had rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing the risk of an injunction in parallel infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, holding that the interests advanced by Meril did not justify shortening the procedural timetable at Edwards' expense.
Meril Italy Srl, Meril GmbH, and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) that rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing potential irreparable harm from a possible injunction in parallel infringement proceedings and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, finding that Meril's interests did not outweigh Edwards' legitimate interest in having the appeals proceed according to the regular timetable.
AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appeal filed by AYLO entities against an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim rejecting their objections to jurisdiction. The court held that the UPC has international jurisdiction for an infringement action when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and the alleged damage may occur in that state, including via internet-based services accessible in that territory. The court also confirmed that the list of objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure is exhaustive and does not extend to arguments such as abusive conduct or manifest lack of merit.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd & Others v.VusionGroup SA
This case concerns a procedural question before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding where a cost determination application must be filed when it follows an order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that cost determination applications must be filed at the Court of First Instance, even when they relate exclusively or partially to costs of appeal proceedings, and referred Hanshow's application to the Rapporteur of the Court of First Instance.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal by Mala Technologies Ltd. against a decision of the Court of First Instance that rejected Mala's preliminary objection in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 044 709 B1. Mala requested a stay of the first instance revocation proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal declared the stay request inadmissible because Mala's written statement did not constitute a 'reasoned request' under Rule 21.2 RoP, and further rejected the request on its merits, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay.
VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, and Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 883 277, which relates to electronic labels for displaying information in retail spaces. The appellant (VusionGroup SA, formerly SES-imagotag SA) sought interim measures against various Hanshow entities, alleging infringement of the patent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused products (various Nebular and Stellar Pro models) fell within the scope of claim 1 of the patent, particularly because it did not demonstrate that the antenna was positioned further toward the front face of the electronic label than the printed circuit board.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl and SCHNELL S.p.A.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted suspensive effect to an appeal filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against an order of the Local Division Milan that revoked provisional measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises, and ordered the restitution of gathered evidence to the respondents. The Court held that enforcement of the restitution order pending the appeal would render the appeal largely ineffective, as the return of evidence would be difficult to reverse if the appeal succeeded.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court against five European patents owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., but mistakenly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' in the statements for revocation. The Court of First Instance rejected Juul Labs International's preliminary objection and ordered rectification of the defendant's name. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor of the patents.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions against Juul Labs International, Inc. at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, but incorrectly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' instead of 'Juul Labs International, Inc.' The Court of First Instance allowed rectification of the defendant's name, and Juul Labs International appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor of the patents at issue.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court against five European patents owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., but mistakenly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' in the statements for revocation. The Court of First Instance rejected Juul Labs' preliminary objection and ordered rectification of the defendant's name. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor, and Juul Labs was not unreasonably prejudiced.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court against 'Juul Labs, Inc.' in respect of five European patents. The actual registered proprietor of the patents was Juul Labs International, Inc., which filed a preliminary objection arguing the actions were improperly directed. The Court of First Instance rejected the objection and ordered rectification of the defendant's name. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor, and Juul Labs International was not unreasonably prejudiced. The Court also held that no order for costs would be made in this non-final appellate decision.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions against 'Juul Labs, Inc.' before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The actual registered proprietor of the patents at issue was Juul Labs International, Inc., which filed a preliminary objection arguing the actions were inadmissible. The Court of First Instance allowed rectification of the defendant's name, and Juul Labs International, Inc. appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that the revocation actions were intended to be directed against the registered proprietor.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. and NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a corrigendum issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court on 11 March 2024, correcting Headnote 2, paragraph 3 of its earlier order dated 26 February 2024 in proceedings concerning EP 4 108 782. The underlying proceedings concern an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Chamber Munich) of 19 September 2023 in provisional measures proceedings (UPC CFI 2/2023). The corrected headnote sets out principles for the interpretation of European patent claims under Article 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on its interpretation.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on 16 December 2023, all three NanoString respondents filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on 4 February 2024. Both parties requested suspension of the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests, holding that under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, proceedings need not be suspended under Rule 311.1 of the Rules of Procedure when a party is declared insolvent only after the close of oral hearings and the case is ready for decision.
Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the appeal fee in a dispute over European Patent EP 3 763 331 (a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses). The Court of Appeal determined that Meril, as appellants, must pay an appeal fee of €11,000 by analogy to the fee for an appeal under Rule 220.1(c) RoP regarding provisional measures under Article 62 EPCA, since the fee table contains no specific provision for an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP against a costs order issued under Rule 360 RoP.
Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns an application by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. for suspensive effect of their appeal against a costs order of the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the appellants' interest in avoiding further costs from cost decision proceedings did not outweigh the respondent's interest in a quick decision on costs, and that the impugned order was not clearly erroneous.
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.