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.
This procedural order addressed a request for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an infringement action in the UPC. The Court confirmed that because the case was terminated before the conclusion of the written procedure, the Claimant was entitled to 60% of their paid court fees under Rule 370.9 RoP. This decision highlights the practical application of cost recovery rules when litigation is voluntarily withdrawn.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This procedural order in UPC_CFI_555/2024 addresses a complex infringement and revocation action brought by Malikie Innovations Ltd. against Nintendo Co., Ltd. The court admitted numerous applications, including changes to the patent claims and new prior art documents (D10-D20). A key focus was balancing strict procedural rules regarding late inventive step attacks with pragmatic judicial management of the case, allowing for contested submissions while reserving final decisions on complex issues for the panel.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This procedural order in UPC_CFI_537/2024 addressed critical issues regarding claim scope and evidence admissibility in an infringement and revocation action. The court allowed extensive amendments to the patent claims, provided they maintained a reasonable structure (two strains of auxiliary requests). Furthermore, it admitted new prior art documents introduced by both sides, ensuring that the case can proceed with a comprehensive review of validity and infringement.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical for the imminent infringement of its patent covering braided occlusion devices. The court's final order emphasized that CE-mark approval is a mandatory prerequisite for legal market entry in the EU. This ruling highlights the critical role of regulatory compliance (specifically MDR) when assessing potential infringement and market readiness within UPC proceedings.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
In this UPC case, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. initiated infringement proceedings against Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL regarding EP 4 074 373. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement to resolve the dispute. The Hamburg Local Division confirmed this settlement, allowing it to be treated as a final, enforceable decision while ensuring that the confidential details of the agreement remained protected in the public register.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC cost decision addressed the financial claims following a preliminary measures application concerning the pharmaceutical product Epysqli®. The court meticulously reviewed the claimed costs, distinguishing between reasonable expert fees and disproportionate legal representation expenses. While recognizing the necessity of certain travel and expert costs, the court struck down excessive charges from UK solicitors that did not demonstrate efficiency in the proceedings.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a cost claim filed by Samsung Bioepis against Alexion Pharmaceuticals following the dismissal and rejection of provisional measures proceedings. The court found that while the overall application was admissible, several elements of the claimed costs were unreasonable or unsupported by evidence. Key adjustments included limiting travel accommodation reimbursement based on the actual arrival time at the hearing location.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought provisional measures against Speed Care Mineral GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of its patent on clay-based hemostatic agents. The UPC Local Division in Hamburg dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to provide sufficient certainty that the Defendant's product contained a binder element as required by the patent claims. This decision highlights the high evidentiary threshold required for applicants seeking urgent relief like preliminary injunctions under the UPC framework.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the timing of patent amendments during infringement proceedings. The court examined an application by President and Fellows of Harvard College to amend its patent based on developments in parallel EPO opposition proceedings. While the initial amendment request was rejected, the court allowed an appeal because the question of when subsequent amendments can be filed under Rule 30.2 VerfO has broad significance for UPC practice. This case highlights the strict procedural requirements governing changes to patent claims mid-litigation.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This UPC decision is a procedural ruling concerning the correct service date of infringement claims filed against a Swiss defendant. The court clarified that because Switzerland falls outside the EU, standard fictional rules for deemed service do not apply, meaning the actual delivery date must be recognized. This highlights the importance of correctly applying jurisdictional and procedural rules when serving documents across international borders in UPC proceedings.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the scope and access rights under a confidentiality order in an infringement action involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi Technology. The Claimant sought to expand access for its US counsel and include all future confidential information, arguing this was necessary for effective litigation strategy. The Panel rejected these requests, affirming that the initial restrictions were appropriate given jurisdictional constraints and the need for defined scope. Crucially, the Court granted leave to appeal for the Claimant.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In a significant preliminary order, the UPC Local Division Hamburg rejected the request by Tandem Diabetes Care to stay an infringement action concerning its t:slim X2 insulin pump. The court emphasized the efficiency of the UPC system, stating that it is appropriate for the local division to hear both the infringement claim and the pending revocation actions simultaneously. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural delays should not impede the pursuit of patent rights when a joint hearing can ensure a uniform legal outcome.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Samsung Bioepis regarding its biosimilar product Epysqli®, which challenges Alexion's patented antibody for treating PNH. The UPC Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. The court found that while infringement could be established, there was insufficient certainty regarding the patent's validity to warrant an immediate injunction.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
Ballinno B.V. sought a provisional injunction against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH regarding its patent covering methods for detecting offside situations using sound signals in sports. The UPC Court of First Instance dismissed the application for provisional measures. The court's decision highlighted the importance of demonstrating urgency when pursuing infringement claims, noting that a prolonged period without significant efforts to clarify potential infringement can be detrimental. This ruling serves as a cautionary note regarding procedural diligence in urgent patent litigation.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This UPC decision addresses applications for provisional measures in a dispute involving sports technology patents. The Court upheld the defendants' right to request security for costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA, setting the required amount at €56,000. Crucially, the Panel dismissed the request for a technically qualified judge, asserting its own competence to handle the physics-related issues given the complexity and time sensitivity of the case.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed the method of serving a complaint in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against several Xiaomi and MediaTek entities. The plaintiff argued that certain German branch offices could serve as valid places for service under UPCA Rules 271.5 RoP, despite the defendants being foreign-domiciled. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the strict hierarchy of procedural rules governing international service. The ruling clarified that when defendants are domiciled outside the UPCA territory, standard international procedures like the Hague Service Convention must be followed under Rules 273 and 274 RoP. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established international legal frameworks for proper litigation procedure in the UPC.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the court issued a complex order regarding document disclosure stemming from parallel US litigation. The respondent sought to introduce evidence related to non-technical issues (such as competitive practices) into the European proceedings. The court granted the submission of specific documents but imposed stringent confidentiality requirements ('Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only'), balancing the need for evidence with protecting trade secrets.
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.