PROCEDURE On
4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Primetals TechnologiesAustria GMBH v.Danieli &c. spa Danieli Automation spa
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2624977 relating to a driver for a steel strip coiling installation, filed an ex-parte application for preserving evidence and inspection against Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A. before the Local Division in Milan of the Unified Patent Court. The applicant alleged that during a September 2023 visit to its customer Nucor Steel Gallatin in Kentucky, US, it discovered a driver for a steel strip coiler manufactured by the Danieli group that appeared to reproduce the teachings of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 of EP977. The applicant sought an order for inspection of the defendants' premises to collect and preserve technical, advertising, and commercial documentation relating to the allegedly infringing drivers.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
This order concerns three applications filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH (as defendants in the main infringement action) requesting that the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), provide security for legal costs pursuant to Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The applicants argued that NST, a US company with its administrative domicile outside the EU, posed a real risk that any cost reimbursement order would be difficult or impossible to enforce, given the complexity of US recognition procedures for foreign judgments. The applications sought security of EUR 200,000 each, or alternatively an amount to be determined by the Court, along with a stay of proceedings or extension of the deadline to respond to the claim.
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 1 552 399 B1 filed applications requesting that the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), provide security for legal costs pursuant to Art. 69.4 UPCA and rule 158 RoP. The applicants argued that NST, a US company with its administrative domicile outside the EU, posed a real risk that any cost reimbursement order would be difficult or impossible to enforce. The applications sought EUR 200,000 each in security, alternatively an amount to be determined by the Court, along with a stay of proceedings or extension of the deadline to respond.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This order concerns three applications by the defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) requesting security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US company. The applicants sought security of EUR 200,000 each under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP, arguing that enforcement of any cost order against NST in the United States would be difficult, lengthy, and expensive due to the state-by-state exequatur requirements. The applications were filed in connection with the main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399 B1 relating to integrated circuits and methods for establishing transactions.
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.