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., 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 UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal regarding the public access to confidential documents submitted in underlying infringement and revocation proceedings involving Huawei and TP-Link. The court ultimately rejected Huawei's attempt to block document disclosure, upholding the initial order that allowed TP-Link limited access to redacted versions of the files. This ruling reinforces the balance between the public right of access under the EPC and the need to protect sensitive commercial information in UPC litigation.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v.Occlutech GmbH
In a critical decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect against an injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division. The court emphasized that exceptions to the rule requiring manifest error are narrowly applied. This ruling reinforces the principle that patentees can secure immediate protection against infringement unless the appellant meets a high burden of proof.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the costs associated with an application for damages/compensation. Bruker appealed the limitation on the reimbursement of court fees related to its request to lay open books, arguing that such proceedings should not incur separate fees. The Court firmly upheld the requirement for Bruker to pay both fixed and value-based fees, confirming that compensation determination is a distinct quantum proceeding under the RoP. This ruling clarifies the financial obligations parties face when seeking damages or compensation in UPC litigation.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH / Cisco Systems, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application concerning the extension of deadlines in an ongoing infringement case involving Cisco and Lionra Technologies Ltd., relating to EP 2 201 740. The core issue was balancing the need for adequate time for Cisco to respond, given late access to confidential information, against the urgency required by Lionra. The Court ultimately granted a two-week extension, allowing the appeal process to continue.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a dispute over the scope of access to confidential information in ongoing infringement proceedings. Network System Technologies (NST) sought broader access for its US attorneys, arguing their technical expertise was vital. Qualcomm opposed this request, citing the need to protect sensitive data. The court ultimately sided with Qualcomm, emphasizing that access must be strictly limited and found that NST's existing team structure provided adequate representation without requiring additional attorney access.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had initially sought revocation of EP 2 794 928 against Harvard, which was subsequently revoked by the CFI. When Harvard appealed and later withdrew the appeal, the dispute shifted to fee reimbursement under UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP). The Court ruled that because the withdrawal occurred after the written procedure closed but before the interim procedure ended, Harvard qualified for a 40% refund rather than the maximum 60%.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In this appeal case, NanoString Technologies sought to withdraw its revocation action against Harvard University concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, noting that Harvard had not demonstrated a legitimate interest in continuing the proceedings after being given an opportunity to respond. This decision effectively closed the legal dispute and resulted in the release of NanoString's security deposit.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter: the withdrawal of an application for leave to appeal. EOFlow Co., Ltd. sought to withdraw its appeal against a cost decision issued by the Court of First Instance, and Insulet Corporation agreed to this withdrawal. The Court granted the request, confirming that parties can withdraw their actions under Rule 265 RoP when no final judgment has been rendered in the main case.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed requests for the expedition of appeals concerning the validity of European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to a prosthetic heart valve. The court ultimately rejected Meril's pleas for an expedited timeline. The ruling reinforces that procedural concerns regarding potential injunction risks must be managed through existing mechanisms within the UPC, rather than solely relying on accelerated timetables.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addressed requests for expedition in multiple appeals concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent covering a prosthetic heart valve. The court ultimately rejected Meril's pleas to accelerate the proceedings, citing that existing legal mechanisms could manage the risks associated with pending validity challenges. This decision reinforces the standard procedural timetable of the UPC unless exceptional circumstances are met.
AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This UPC appeal decision addresses complex issues of international jurisdiction in patent infringement cases involving internet-based services. The court provided a clear interpretation of how Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation applies to digital infringement, stating that potential damage can arise from accessing services within the member state where the patent is effective. This ruling provides significant guidance for practitioners dealing with cross-border streaming and software patents.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.VusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA)
This UPC Appeals Board decision clarifies the procedural rules governing cost determination in complex litigation. The court ruled that even when a party seeks to recover costs related to the appeals process itself, the application must ultimately be filed with and decided by the Court of First Instance. This ruling reinforces the structured nature of the UPC's procedure, ensuring that all final cost determinations follow the established framework (R. 150 ff. VerfO). Practitioners should note this when planning their costs recovery strategy in multi-stage UPC proceedings.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a stay of proceedings in a patent revocation action. Mala Technologies, the patent proprietor, sought to halt the main revocation case pending decisions on preliminary objections and parallel national appeals. The Court ultimately denied this request, citing that the interests of the defendant (Nokia Technology) in obtaining a swift validity decision outweighed the claimant's interest in cost avoidance. This ruling reinforces the principle that UPC proceedings should proceed unhindered by procedural appeals unless exceptional circumstances are met.
VusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
VusionGroup SA appealed a decision rejecting its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology regarding EP 3883277, which covers electronic price labels. The UPC Board of Appeal found that the products manufactured by Hanshow did not meet all the technical requirements defined in the patent claims. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the initial rejection and holding VusionGroup liable for legal costs.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl; SCHNELL S.p.A.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to an appeal filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against an earlier decision. The original decision had revoked provisional measures for evidence preservation and ordered the return of gathered evidence. The court ruled that allowing immediate enforcement would severely undermine the Appellant's ability to successfully challenge the order. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the judicial discretion available under UPC rules to prevent procedural outcomes from becoming moot.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a defendant's name in five revocation actions. The core issue was whether the initial clerical error, where 'Juul Labs, Inc.' was named instead of 'Juul Labs International, Inc.', invalidated the proceedings. The court rejected the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision to rectify the name, thereby allowing the underlying revocation actions to proceed.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a party's name in five revocation actions. The respondent, Juul Labs International, Inc., appealed an order that corrected a clerical error in the defendant's name from 'Juul Labs, Inc.' to 'Juul Labs International, Inc.'. The court rejected the appeal, affirming the procedural correction. Crucially, the decision also provided guidance on cost allocation, stating that since this is not a final judgment on the merits of the revocation actions, costs will be determined later.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a defendant's name in five revocation actions. The appellant, Juul Labs International, Inc., challenged the initial court order that corrected the name from 'Juul Labs, Inc.' to 'Juul Labs International, Inc.'. The Court ultimately rejected this appeal, upholding the administrative correction. Crucially, the ruling also provided a detailed interpretation of UPC Rules regarding costs, confirming that cost allocation can only occur in the final decision on the merits.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a defendant's name in five revocation actions. The appellant, Juul Labs International, Inc., challenged the lower court's order to correct a clerical error regarding its corporate name. The Court rejected the appeal, affirming that the initial correction was appropriate. Crucially, the ruling also provided guidance on costs, stating that since this is not a final decision on the merits of the revocation actions, no cost orders will be issued at the appellate level.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the correct naming of parties in revocation actions. The respondent, NJOY Netherlands B.V., sought to rectify the defendant's name from 'Juul Labs, Inc.' to 'Juul Labs International, Inc.', which was deemed a clerical error. The court rejected the appeal against this rectification order, confirming that the procedural steps taken by the Court of First Instance were correct. Crucially, the ruling also clarified the timing for cost allocation in UPC proceedings.
NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural correction in an ongoing provisional measures case involving NanoString Technologies and 10x Genomics concerning EP 4108782. The core ruling clarifies the established principles for interpreting European patent claims under Article 69 EPC. It emphasizes that interpretation must be holistic, considering the description and drawings alongside the literal claim language to ensure a balanced outcome between inventor protection and third-party certainty.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request to suspend infringement proceedings due to the insolvency filing (Chapter 11) of one of the defendants. The court rejected the suspension request, establishing a key principle that procedural efficiency and fairness outweigh automatic suspension when the bankruptcy occurs after the oral hearing and the case is ready for judgment. This ruling provides clarity on how UPC procedures interact with foreign insolvency laws.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC appellate decision concerns a dispute over court fees in an appeal filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The original case involved infringement allegations related to heart valve prostheses. The current ruling focuses purely on procedural matters, specifically determining the correct fee for the appeal based on the nature of the underlying decision (an order concerning provisional measures). The court ultimately ordered the appellants to pay a remaining balance of €9,500.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH; Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect concerning a cost order issued by the Court of First Instance (CFI). The CFI had ordered Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences to bear significant costs after the main provisional measures action became moot due to a cease-and-desist undertaking. The Appellants appealed this cost ruling, arguing that further procedural steps would incur unnecessary expenses. However, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected the application for suspensive effect, emphasizing the procedural priority given to timely cost decisions under the Rules of Procedure.
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.