Judge Profile

rapporteur Maximilian Haedicke

4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2025

Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000549

This procedural order concerns an application by Claimant Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH to restrict Defendant Ballinno B.V.'s access to certain information in a cost decision application filed in underlying revocation proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067 B1. The Court denied the application under R. 262A RoP, finding Claimant's arguments too general and the proposed access restriction unduly burdensome, but granted an implied request under R. 262.2 RoP, preventing Defendant and its UPC representatives from disclosing the cost-related information to third parties.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 4, 2024

Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG v.Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001455

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld a decision that an opt-out from UPC jurisdiction was invalid because it was not lodged by all proprietors of all national parts of the European patent. Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (Neo) had argued that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for European patent EP 3876490 was valid, but the Court ruled that Article 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge the opt-out application. The appeal was rejected, and the revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe was allowed to proceed before the UPC.

patent LITIGATION · Apr 25, 2024

Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Ex Parte

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001517

Procedural Order

patent LITIGATION · Apr 11, 2024

Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG v.Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001534

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Toyota's request for a decision by default against Neo Wireless's appeal of an order rejecting Neo's preliminary objection to the UPC's jurisdiction. The court held that Neo had timely corrected formal deficiencies and that the 15-day deadline for filing a statement of appeal under R.224.1(b) RoP runs from the date of service of the decision granting leave to appeal, not from the date of the impugned order.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →