Petri Rinkinen
14 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
14 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. alleged that AorticLab srl's 'FLOWer' embolic protection device infringed European Patent EP 2 129 425, which relates to an embolic protection device with a cylindrical outer structure and conical inner structure for capturing emboli. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the attacked embodiment did not include a pull loop or other graspable structure engageable by a hook as required by claim 1 of the patent. The defendant's conditional counterclaim for invalidity was not decided because it was dependent on a finding of infringement, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the counterclaim.
BARCO NV v.YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
Infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827 before the Local Division Brussels. YEALINK filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. After the Court of Appeal confirmed the Brussels Local Division's territorial competence in a related cross-appeal, YEALINK withdrew its Preliminary Objection, and the Court closed the preliminary objection proceedings.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. Yealink filed a Preliminary Objection under R. 19 RoP challenging the territorial competence of the LD Brussels under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. Because the same territorial competence issue was already the subject of a cross-appeal pending before the UPC Court of Appeal in case UPC_CoA_317/2025, the Court stayed the Preliminary Objection proceedings until the Court of Appeal issues its decision, and set a schedule for post-decision comments.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division in Lisbon of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. Both parties agreed on the appointment of a Technically Qualified Judge and that the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation should be heard together. The Court scheduled an interim conference for 22 January 2026 and an oral hearing for 25 March 2026.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH sought a preliminary injunction before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Zentiva Portugal, Lda, alleging imminent infringement of European Patent EP 1 830 843 B1, which protects the use of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The Court rejected the application, finding that Boehringer failed to demonstrate imminent infringement arising directly from Zentiva's conduct, particularly given that the Portuguese Intellectual Property Court had already granted a preliminary injunction in parallel proceedings. The Applicants were ordered to pay the Defendant interim costs of EUR 92,944.15.
Hand Held Products Inc. v.Scandit AG and Scandit Inc.
This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) regarding European Patent EP4163816. Both parties, Hand Held Products Inc. and Scandit (AG and Inc), reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees since the written procedure was still ongoing.
Viking Arm AS v.Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Inc., and Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH
Viking Arm AS filed an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities concerning European Patent EP3953541, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently agreed to withdraw their respective actions, and the court declared the proceedings closed without issuing a costs decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy and Others
Procedural order from the UPC Local Division Helsinki in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3295663. AIM Sport Development AG sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to amend its Statement of Claims and under Rule 305 RoP to add a new defendant, TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited. The Court granted the application, allowing the amendments and the addition of the new defendant, while giving the existing defendants three months from the date of the order to lodge their Statement of Defence.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. & Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This case concerns a panel review of a confidentiality order in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to extend access to confidential information to two US-based attorneys and to future confidential submissions, arguing that excluding them violated its fundamental judicial rights. The Panel rejected the application to dismiss the procedural orders, upheld the restriction on access by the US attorneys, and granted the Defendants' request to replace the redacted version of the Statement of Defence, while granting leave to appeal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP2713879 relating to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on-body devices, sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. for allegedly infringing the patent through the marketing of the GS1 CGM device in Europe. The Local Division The Hague granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a sufficient interest despite a unilateral cease-and-desist declaration, and that the Defendants' GS1 device likely infringed claims 1 and 4 of the patent.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 concerning an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. The court denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC), as claim 1 and its dependent claims extended beyond the disclosure of the original application. Abbott was ordered to bear the defendants' costs, with the value of the dispute set at EUR 4,000,000.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC). Abbott was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, and the value of the dispute was set at EUR 4,000,000.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 2 713 879 relating to an apparatus for an on-body continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor device, sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. for allegedly infringing the patent through the marketing of the GS1 CGM device in Europe. The Local Division The Hague granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a sufficient interest and that the Defendants' unilateral cease-and-desist declaration did not render the application devoid of purpose.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, and MediaTek Inc.
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned a dispute over the method of serving process on three defendants domiciled outside the contracting member states. The claimant sought to serve Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., and MediaTek Inc. via their respective German branch offices under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The court dismissed the request, holding that service on defendants domiciled outside the contracting member states must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP, requiring first an attempt at service under the Hague Service Convention or diplomatic channels.
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.