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 UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of appeals in a dispute between Samsung Bioepis and Alexion Pharmaceuticals regarding EP 3 167 888. The case, which had previously involved provisional measures and cost disputes, was ultimately closed when both parties agreed to withdraw their respective applications for leave to appeal. The court confirmed that consent from the opposing party negates any legitimate interest in the continuation of the proceedings.
Angelalign Technology Inc. v.Align Technology, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning procedural matters in provisional measures proceedings. Angelalign sought to overturn an earlier order from the Court of First Instance that disregarded its non-infringement arguments. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing strict requirements for challenging lower court decisions. Practitioners should note that simply stating that evidence was excluded is insufficient; applicants must clearly articulate why the exclusion constitutes a manifest error.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party intervenor (Streithelfer) when the main party withdraws their appeal. The case involved Strabag and Swarco, with Chainzone intervening to support Strabag's position regarding patent EP 2 643 717. When Strabag settled out of court and withdrew its appeal, the UPC ruled that Chainzone’s intervention became legally moot. This decision clarifies strict rules governing third-party involvement in appellate proceedings.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party assisting party (Streithelfer) when the main supported party withdraws their appeal. Chainzone, acting as an assistant to Strabag, sought to continue its own infringement appeal against Swarco. However, because Strabag reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew its appeal, the court ruled that Chainzone's independent legal standing was lost. Consequently, Chainzone's appeal was dismissed without subject matter.
Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application regarding confidentiality during appeal proceedings. Kodak, the appellant, sought a new confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP, citing the need to protect trade secrets in its grounds of appeal. The UPC ruled that since the original CFI orders explicitly stipulated their continuation into appellate stages, the requests for a new regime were superfluous and dismissed.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Strabag Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addressed a request for confidentiality regarding technical data and measurement reports in an infringement case involving traffic signaling systems. The court confirmed that certain non-obvious product properties qualify as trade secrets under Article 58 EPC, provided they are kept confidential. While the court granted protection to specific documents submitted by Strabag, it rejected broader requests from both Swarco (the claimant) and Chainzone (the assisting party), setting clear boundaries on information disclosure in UPC proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
In this procedural matter before the UPC Court of Appeal, Network System Technologies LLC sought the release of substantial security deposits previously ordered by the Munich Local Division. The security had been required to cover potential legal costs related to infringement proceedings against Volkswagen AG. Crucially, NTS subsequently withdrew its infringement actions at the lower court level. The Court of Appeal agreed that with the withdrawal of the main claims, the basis for maintaining the security vanished. This decision provides a clear procedural precedent regarding the timely release of funds when underlying litigation is terminated by the claimant.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of infringement actions. Network System Technologies LLC had deposited substantial funds to cover legal costs incurred by Audi AG during the proceedings. Since NTS subsequently withdrew its claims and closed the case at the Munich Local Division, the Court of Appeal granted the application for the full return of these security amounts. This ruling provides clarity on the procedural mechanism for releasing financial guarantees when litigation concludes prematurely.
Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
In a significant procedural ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to an order issued by the CFI. The dispute involved Magna International and Valeo Electrification regarding patent EP 3 320 602, which covers technology used in BMW models. Magna successfully argued that the original injunction contained a clear error—an 'obvious slip'—by omitting a specific model from its exceptions. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to correct procedural errors and prioritize maintaining the status quo when such errors threaten fundamental fairness.
Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This decision from the UPC Appeals Court addressed a procedural dispute regarding deadlines for filing pleadings (Duplik) in an ongoing infringement and revocation action. Xiaomi sought discretionary review to overturn a previous ruling that partially denied their request for a deadline extension, arguing inconsistencies across different Local Divisions of the UPC. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no sufficient grounds to overturn the lower court's procedural decision.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal order addressed a procedural request by Volkswagen AG to submit additional written pleadings in an appeal concerning security for costs. The court found the request sufficiently reasoned, allowing Volkswagen to correct facts presented by Network System Technologies LLC. (NST). This decision highlights the flexibility of the UPC's rules regarding the exchange of evidence and arguments during appellate proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the exchange of written pleadings in an ongoing infringement appeal. Audi AG successfully requested permission to submit additional statements, arguing that the opposing party, NST, had misrepresented facts during the proceedings. The court granted this request, allowing both parties more time to present their arguments before the substantive issues are decided.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request from Volkswagen AG seeking permission to submit additional written pleadings in an appeal concerning security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC. The court confirmed that under the Rules of Procedure, parties can lodge reasoned requests to exchange further submissions if necessary to correct facts or clarify issues. By allowing this request, the Court ensured all relevant factual arguments could be presented before closing the written phase.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request regarding the exchange of written pleadings during an appeal concerning security for costs. Audi AG successfully argued that it needed to correct certain facts submitted by NST, and the Court granted permission for additional submissions. This ruling reinforces the flexibility within the UPC's Rules of Procedure (RoP), allowing parties to refine their arguments even late in the written phase if a reasoned request is made.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC Court of Appeal order addresses a procedural motion in an appeal concerning security for costs. Volkswagen AG successfully requested permission to submit additional written pleadings, arguing the need to correct facts presented by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The court granted this request, allowing both parties to exchange further statements before closing the written procedure. This highlights the UPC's willingness to maintain a dynamic procedural environment to ensure all relevant factual and legal points are addressed.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the exchange of written pleadings during an appeal concerning security for costs. Audi AG successfully petitioned the court to allow it to submit additional facts and evidence, arguing that the initial proceedings contained factual errors by the opposing party, NST. The court granted this request, allowing both parties further time to refine their arguments before closing the written phase.
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 UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the effective date of service in an appeal. The case involved Xiaomi, which sought clarification on when it was formally served with the appeal documents due to technical glitches within the Case Management System (CMS). The court found that conflicting information and CMS misconfiguration led to confusion regarding the actual delivery date. Consequently, the Court ruled that April 3, 2024, must be recognized as the correct service date, ensuring Xiaomi's right to respond by the extended deadline.
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.