Sabine Klepsch
16 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
16 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This procedural order concerns the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action. The Claimant, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH, had filed an infringement action regarding EP 4 426 414 against the Defendant, Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L., and subsequently withdrew the action. The Court ordered the Registrar to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees (6,600 EUR) pursuant to Rule 370.9 RoP (2025), as the action was terminated before the closure of the written procedure.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2579551, owned by Malikie Innovations Ltd. against Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 22 October 2025, addressing procedural matters including the value of the case, reimbursement of legal costs, parallel proceedings status, the claimant's operational request regarding the counterclaim for revocation, and the admissibility of certain evidence and claim amendments. The judge-rapporteur admitted the Patent Sale Agreement and Patent Assignment Agreement as exhibits and granted leave to amend the patent claims under Rule 263 RoP.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
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.Respondent
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.
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
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.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_22/2023) involving European Patent EP4108782, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, against Vizgen, Inc. The dispute centers on Plaintiff Harvard's third request to amend the patent, filed on October 25, 2024, which was rejected by the Rapporteur's order of November 8, 2024. The Local Chamber Hamburg reviewed the order under Rule 333.1 RoP and confirmed the rejection, holding that approximately three months between the alleged reason for the amendment and the filing of the request was too long under Rule 30.2 RoP.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 3 764 271. The plaintiff Hand Held Products, Inc. filed suit on November 6, 2024, alleging infringement by the defendant Scandit AG, which is based in Switzerland. The order resolves a discrepancy between the actual date of service (November 20, 2024) and the date automatically recorded in the Case Management System (November 23, 2024), which was based on an inapplicable service fiction under Rule 271.6 of the Rules of Procedure.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College, v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is an order from the Local Division Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4108782 held by President and Fellows of Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen, Inc. filed a request under Rule 333.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking review by the full panel of the reporting judge's order of August 15, 2024, which had rejected Vizgen's requests for production of documents. The disputed documents relate to non-technical objections, specifically allegations of abuse of rights (Rechtsmissbrauch), and were originally produced in US parallel proceedings.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent
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.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., v.Respondent
1 Hamburg – Local Division UPC_CFI_88/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued: 09/09/2024 PARTIES: Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, represented by Herrn Götzl, Sandhofer Straße 116, 68305 Mannheim, Germany, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 1
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. before the Local Division Hamburg in relation to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, which covers the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) patients with a complement component 5 (C5) inhibitor. The patent, a divisional application, was granted with unitary effect on 1 May 2024 following a Technical Board of Appeal decision upholding its patentability. The defendant had filed an opposition at the EPO shortly after grant. The court addressed the standard for assessing validity in the context of provisional measures, holding that such decisions must consider not only the court's own view of validity but also the likelihood that the EPO opposition division will revoke the patent.
Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1 relating to a method and system for detecting offside situations, sought a preliminary injunction against UEFA and Kinexon entities in connection with the 'Connected Ball Technology' used at the UEFA European Football Championship 2024. The court denied the application, finding that the claimant had waited almost three months after learning of the alleged infringement without taking significant steps to investigate or obtain supporting documents, thereby failing to demonstrate the urgency required for a preliminary injunction.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Respondent
This case concerns three interlocutory applications filed by the defendants (UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) in proceedings brought by Ballinno B.V. regarding European Patent EP1944067. The defendants sought an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs of at least €200,000, an adjustment of the value in dispute to €2,000,000, and the allocation of a technically qualified judge to the panel. The defendants argued that Ballinno, a Dutch company with unpaid issued capital of EUR 1 and no known assets other than the patent in suit, was unlikely to be able to reimburse litigation costs.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action relating to European Patent EP2792100, owned by Daedalus Prime LLC. The plaintiff sought permission to serve process on the Chinese defendants (Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc.) and the Taiwanese defendant (MediaTek Inc.) via their respective German branch offices under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff argued that the German branches operate with sufficient independence and autonomy to qualify as places of business through which service could validly be effected.
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.