rapporteur Maximilian Haedicke
4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH v.BALLINNO B.V.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the confidentiality of financial details within an application for a cost decision. The Claimant sought to protect specific costs information, arguing it constituted a business secret revealing strategic resource allocation. While the court denied the broad request for confidential protection under R. 262A RoP, it granted a narrower measure preventing the Defendant from disclosing the subject matter of the cost decision to third parties. This case highlights the delicate balance between protecting party interests and maintaining public oversight in UPC proceedings.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical procedural requirement for opting out of the Unified Patent Court's jurisdiction. The court ruled that an opt-out application must be lodged by or on behalf of every proprietor holding any national part of the European patent. This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of Art. 83(3) UPCA, ensuring that no single owner can unilaterally remove a patent from UPC competence if co-ownership exists across different member states.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG to stay revocation proceedings against EP 3 876 490 pending parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO. The Court ultimately rejected the stay application, emphasizing that 'rapid decision' must mean a concrete and near-future expectation from the EPO. The ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to expeditious justice, prioritizing the right holder's interest in timely legal certainty over potential cost savings for the defendant.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the timing for filing an appeal statement following the granting of leave to appeal. Toyota sought a default judgment against Neo, arguing that Neo missed the deadline based on the date of the initial order. The Court definitively ruled that the relevant 15-day period begins only upon service of the specific decision granting leave to appeal, not the original impugned order. This ruling provides crucial clarity for practitioners navigating procedural deadlines in UPC appeals.
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.