Sabine Klepsch
17 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
17 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
Procedural Order
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2448225. The order summarizes decisions taken during an interim conference held on 22 October 2025, addressing various procedural matters including the value of the case, admissibility of evidence and amendments, and the filing of further submissions. The judge-rapporteur issued orders on the admission of patent sale and assignment agreements, claim amendments, prior art documents, and inventive step objections, while referring certain admissibility questions to the panel for final decision.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2579551. Following an interim conference held on 22 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur issued decisions on various procedural matters, including the value of the case, admissibility of evidence, amendments to the patent claims, and the introduction of prior art documents. The order admits the Patent Sale Agreement and Patent Assignment Agreement, both rounds of patent amendments under Rules 30.1 and 30.2 RoP, and prior art documents D6 through D11, while granting the Claimant the right to comment on the newly introduced documents and validity attacks.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
Occlutech GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 387 951 B1 covering a braided implantable occlusion device, sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities for alleged infringement with their 'MemoCarna ASD' and 'MemoCarna VSD' devices. The Local Division Hamburg held that the Defendants' recent CE-mark approval, combined with their public marketing activities and trade fair participation, established imminent infringement and territorial jurisdiction in Germany. The court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, or using the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland, with a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. a.o.
Infringement proceedings were initiated by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. against Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL concerning EP 4 074 373 before the Hamburg Local Division. The parties subsequently concluded the proceedings by way of a settlement agreement dated 10 September 2025 and jointly requested the Court to confirm the settlement, keep its details confidential, and refrain from issuing a cost decision. The Court confirmed the settlement under Rule 365.1 RoP, ordered that only the redacted version be entered in the register, and declared the decision enforceable as a final decision of the Court.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This is a cost decision by the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court following the dismissal of Alexion Pharmaceuticals' application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's marketing of Epysqli®. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court partially granted the application, recognizing costs for two legal representatives, two patent attorneys, and an expert, but rejecting costs for two English solicitors as not sufficiently justified.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns a cost decision for appeal proceedings before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, relating to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the patent proprietor, had its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's product Epysqli® dismissed at first instance and on appeal, with costs ordered against it. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its appeal costs, and the court partially granted the application, finding that costs for two legal representatives and four patent attorneys were largely reasonable, but disallowing costs for two English solicitors and certain travel expenses.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought a preliminary injunction against Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg, alleging that Speed Care's SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing infringed European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1, which protects clay-based hemostatic agents and devices. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by claim 1 of the patent in suit, and therefore could not establish infringement.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning EP4108782. The court confirmed the judge-rapporteur's rejection of Harvard's third request to amend the patent, holding that under Rule 30.2 RoP, a delay of approximately three months between the reason for the amendment (the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion of August 2, 2024) and the filing of the request (October 25, 2024) was too long. The court ruled that the patent proprietor's subjective expectations regarding procedural delay are irrelevant, and the question must be assessed objectively.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning the correct date of service of a patent infringement claim. The court determined that the statement of claim filed on November 6, 2024, regarding EP 3 764 271, was served on the defendant in Switzerland on November 20, 2024, rather than the November 23, 2024 date automatically recorded by the Case Management System.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. & Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This case concerns a panel review of a confidentiality order in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to extend access to confidential information to two US-based attorneys and to future confidential submissions, arguing that excluding them violated its fundamental judicial rights. The Panel rejected the application to dismiss the procedural orders, upheld the restriction on access by the US attorneys, and granted the Defendants' request to replace the redacted version of the Statement of Defence, while granting leave to appeal.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH & F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., & VitalAire GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 196 231, brought by Roche against Tandem Diabetes Care and VitalAire relating to the t:slim X2 insulin pump. The defendants sought a stay of the infringement proceedings pending parallel revocation actions before the Central Division Paris. The Local Division Hamburg dismissed both the request for a stay and the claimant's request to hear the infringement and revocation actions together, finding that the claimant's interest in continuing the proceedings outweighed the defendants' interest in a stay.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Samsung Bioepis to prevent the marketing of Epysqli®, a biosimilar of Alexion's Soliris® (eculizumab), alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 relating to antibodies binding complement component 5 (C5) for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. While the court found that infringement of claim 2 could be established, it dismissed the application for provisional measures because it was not convinced with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid, given the likelihood that the EPO opposition division might revoke the patent.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 relating to a method and system for detecting an offside situation using sound signals, sought a preliminary injunction against UEFA and Kinexon entities to prevent the use of 'Connected Ball Technology' at the UEFA European Football Championship 2024. The Hamburg Local Division dismissed the application, finding that Ballinno had not acted with sufficient urgency and had failed to sufficiently prove infringement, as the Connected Ball Technology uses acceleration measurement rather than the sound signal sensing required by the patent claims.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
This case concerns an application for provisional measures before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP1944067. The defendants (UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) filed three applications seeking security for costs, an increased value of dispute, and allocation of a technically qualified judge. The court ordered the claimant Ballinno B.V. to provide security of €56,000, set the preliminary value of the dispute at €500,000, and dismissed the request for a technically qualified judge.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, and MediaTek Inc.
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned a dispute over the method of serving process on three defendants domiciled outside the contracting member states. The claimant sought to serve Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., and MediaTek Inc. via their respective German branch offices under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The court dismissed the request, holding that service on defendants domiciled outside the contracting member states must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP, requiring first an attempt at service under the Hague Service Convention or diplomatic channels.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This case before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerned a patent infringement action regarding EP4108782. The defendant Vizgen sought review under Rule 333.1 of an order by the presiding judge that had partially rejected its requests for production of documents disclosed in parallel US proceedings. The full panel granted most of the production requests, ordering the plaintiffs to disclose specific emails, an FAQ document, and a deposition transcript, while treating them as confidential information accessible only to legal counsel.
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.