Rian Kalden
17 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
17 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.'s withdrawal of its applications for leave to appeal cost decisions issued by the Hamburg Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 167 888. Alexion's provisional measures applications had been dismissed with costs orders against it, and Samsung's subsequent cost decision applications were found only partially justified. With Alexion's consent and both parties waiving costs, the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and closed the proceedings.
Angelalign Technology Inc. et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Angelalign sought discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a procedural order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf in provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 4 346 690, which had disregarded certain non-infringement arguments and exhibits from Angelalign's Rejoinder. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a standing judge, dismissed the request, finding that Angelalign had failed to substantiate why the impugned order was manifestly erroneous and that allowing the request would disrupt the scheduled first-instance oral hearing.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns the consequences of the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (STRABAG) on the appeal lodged by its intervener (Chainzone) in a patent infringement case. The court held that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws its appeal following an out-of-court settlement, rendering the intervener's appeal moot. Chainzone's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to bear its own costs.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.
This case concerns the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (Strabag) following an out-of-court settlement with the opposing party (Swarco) in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 2 643 717, and the consequences for the appeal independently filed by the intervener (Chainzone). The Court of Appeal admitted the withdrawal of Strabag's appeal and declared Chainzone's separate appeal moot under R. 360 of the Rules of Procedure, holding that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws from the proceedings.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Kodak's applications under R. 262A RoP requesting a confidentiality regime for the appeal proceedings as superfluous. The court held that the existing confidentiality orders issued by the Mannheim Local Division already extended to the appeal proceedings, and that the requirements of the Court's electronic case management system do not override the Rules of Procedure and the Court's case law.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (Confidentiality Order)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 1, 2025, concerning requests for confidentiality and access/use restrictions in an appeal arising from a patent infringement action. The court partially granted the confidentiality requests of STRABAG and its intervener Chainzone, classifying certain information and annexes as confidential trade secrets under Art. 58 EPCA, while rejecting certain requests as inadmissible because they were first raised in the appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted in first instance.
Network System Technologies LLC v.AUDI AG
This case concerns an application by Network System Technologies LLC (NTS) for the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions against AUDI AG. The Court of Appeal had previously ordered NST to provide security for costs totaling EUR 500,000 across three proceedings. After NTS withdrew the infringement actions and the Munich Local Division closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full release and return of the deposited security amounts.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG (Application for Release of Security)
Network System Technologies LLC (NST) applied to the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court for the release of security deposits it had previously been ordered to provide to Volkswagen AG in connection with infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. After NST withdrew its infringement actions before the Munich Local Division, which closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full return of the deposited amounts (totaling EUR 500,000) to NST.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
Order
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure filed by Xiaomi entities against an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The dispute centered on the extension of deadlines for the defendants' rejoinder (Duplik) under Rule 29(d) RoP in three patent infringement proceedings before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Xiaomi had not sufficiently demonstrated that the Local Chamber Mannheim incorrectly interpreted the Rules of Procedure or exceeded its discretionary powers.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute arose from Volkswagen's application for security for costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP, which was denied by the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich). The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi sought to respond to NST's Statement of response to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its behavior in the market. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding it sufficiently reasoned under Rule 36 RoP, and granted NST 14 days to file a response.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi had appealed a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought permission to file additional pleadings to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding Rules 35 and 36 RoP applicable mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings and that Audi's request was sufficiently reasoned.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its request under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP for NST to provide security for legal costs. After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought leave to lodge additional written pleadings to correct certain factual submissions made by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, holding that Rules 35 and 36 RoP apply mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed the date of service of the appeal and statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings concerning EP 3 611 989. Due to a misconfiguration of the Case Management System (CMS) for service in appeal proceedings, Xiaomi's representative was unaware that service had occurred on March 13, 2024. The court clarified that, in the interest of due process and legal certainty, the date of service was deemed to be April 3, 2024, when Xiaomi's representative accessed the CMS and voluntarily accepted service.
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.