Peter Blok
20 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
20 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (and Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited in the CFI main action) v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-Link Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-Link Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link had applied before the Local Division Munich for access to certain pleadings and annexes filed by Huawei and Netgear in related infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 678 321, after redaction of personal data. Netgear opposed the request, seeking its rejection or, alternatively, that TP-Link only receive access to fully redacted versions of the documents. The appeal proceedings concern the contested order of the Local Division Munich dated November 28, 2025.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., 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.
Cisco Systems GmbH , Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order regarding a request for extension of time limits in an appeal concerning EP 2 201 740. Cisco requested a one-month extension to file its response to the appeal and its cross-appeal, while Lionra argued for only one week or ten calendar days. The Court extended the deadline by two weeks, until October 3, 2025, finding that Cisco was entitled to an extension because it had only recently gained access to the unredacted version of Lionra's appeal brief.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
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.Respondent
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.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.Respondent
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.Respondent
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 Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
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 Gmbh v.Respondent
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 FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This appeal concerned the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2479680, owned by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and exclusively licensed to Sling TV L.L.C. The appellants, AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYlo Freesites Ltd, challenged an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim dated April 5, 2024. The Court of Appeal clarified that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) and Article 71b(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and alleged damage may occur there, including through internet-based activities accessible in that territory.
Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal addressed a procedural question regarding where a cost determination application (Kostenfestsetzung) must be filed when it follows an order or decision of the Court of Appeal. Both parties agreed, and the Court of Appeal confirmed, that such applications must be filed with the Court of First Instance and decided by the Rapporteur of that instance, even when the application relates exclusively or partially to the costs of the appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute concerned EP 3883277, where the Local Chamber Munich had rejected VusionGroup's application for interim measures and ordered it to bear Hanshow's costs.
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.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3883277, which relates to electronic shelf labels for displaying information such as prices in retail environments. The appellant, VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA), challenged an order from the Local Chamber Munich dated December 20, 2023, in proceedings involving the respondents Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd and its German, French, and Dutch subsidiaries. The appeal concerned the interpretation of patent claims, the scope of protection, and alleged infringement in the context of an application for provisional measures.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.Respondent
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.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This appeal concerned five revocation actions brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International, Inc. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, relating to five European patents. The statements for revocation incorrectly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' rather than 'Juul Labs International, Inc.' The Court of Appeal addressed whether the claimant could rectify this naming error and considered the issue of costs under Rule 242.1 RoP. The Court held that rectification could be granted where it was clear from the circumstances that the claimant intended the action against the defendant, and that no order for costs would be issued at the appeal stage since the decision was not a final order concluding the action.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a corrigendum order from the Court of Appeal correcting Headnote 2, paragraph 3 of a prior order dated February 26, 2024, due to an obvious incorrectness. The case concerns European Patent EP 4 108 782 and involves proceedings on provisional measures between 10x Genomics and Harvard College as applicants/appellees and NanoString Technologies entities as respondents/appellants. The corrected headnote restates the principles of patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC and its Protocol, clarifying that the patent claim is not merely the starting point but the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding preliminary measures for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on December 16, 2023, all three NanoString entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on February 4, 2024. The applicants (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the proceedings be stayed due to the insolvency, and the respondents (NanoString) agreed. The Court of Appeal held that, under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, the proceedings did not need to be stayed because the insolvency occurred only after the close of oral hearings and the case was ready for decision.
Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. against a cost order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings initiated by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 763 331 relating to a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses. After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist declaration that Edwards accepted, the first-instance court found the interim measures moot, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Meril to bear the costs up to €200,000. Meril appealed seeking to shift the costs to Edwards and requested suspensive effect of the appeal.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
1 Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 18 January 2024 concerning an application for suspensive effect DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS 1. Meril GmbH Bornheimer Straße 135-137, 53119 Bonn, Germany 2. Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. M1-M2, Meril Park, Su
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.