Samuel Granata
23 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
23 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
Infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning European Patent EP4146335. The claimant, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH, requested withdrawal of the action pursuant to Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure after reaching a settlement with the defendant. The defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and found no need for a cost decision.
CooperSurgical, Inc. v.European Distribution Center Motiva BVBA, Establishment Labs S.A. and PulseLavage AB
This case concerned an infringement action filed by CooperSurgical, Inc. before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) regarding EP 3 302 292 B1. After the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent on 30 September 2025, the Claimant withdrew the action. The Court allowed the withdrawal and assessed the costs to be reimbursed to the Defendants, ordering the Claimant to pay €105,757.90 to Defendants 1-2 and €81,423.33 to Defendant 3, while also ordering reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimant.
BARCO NV v.YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
Infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827 before the Local Division Brussels. YEALINK filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. After the Court of Appeal confirmed the Brussels Local Division's territorial competence in a related cross-appeal, YEALINK withdrew its Preliminary Objection, and the Court closed the preliminary objection proceedings.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. Yealink filed a Preliminary Objection under R. 19 RoP challenging the territorial competence of the LD Brussels under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. Because the same territorial competence issue was already the subject of a cross-appeal pending before the UPC Court of Appeal in case UPC_CoA_317/2025, the Court stayed the Preliminary Objection proceedings until the Court of Appeal issues its decision, and set a schedule for post-decision comments.
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.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Ors.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1. Following settlement negotiations, the Claimant and Defendants 1–4 reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, and Defendant 5 agreed to the withdrawal. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs, and granted the Claimant a 60% reimbursement of court fees (€6,600).
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH, BEGA CONSULT INTERNATIONALE HANDELSAGENTUR GMBH & CO. KG, BEGA BBK SP. Z O.O. SP. K.UL., and NEG NOVEX WHOLESALE COMPANY FOR ELECTRICAL AND BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. sought provisional measures before the Local Division The Hague against members of the BEGA group and NEG Novex, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 522 755 B1 relating to a cabinet for housing a washing machine at waist level. The defendants had previously been licensed to manufacture such cabinets, but the license was terminated effective 1 August 2024. The court found a reasonable likelihood of validity and infringement, sufficient urgency, and granted the provisional measures including a prohibition on manufacturing and selling the accused 'Laundreezy' and 'Respekta Clara' cabinets, recall orders, information obligations, and penalty payments, along with a cost award of EUR 62,600.
Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
This procedural order concerns an application for provisional measures filed by Merz entities against Viatris Santé regarding European Patent EP2377536 and its French Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) FR13C0033. Merz sought an order requiring Viatris to consolidate its 473-page Objection into a shorter document, arguing the disparity in submission lengths would deprive them of an equal opportunity to defend their case. The judge rapporteur found the 470-page objection inappropriate in the context of provisional measures and ordered Viatris to file a 70-page summary, with Merz permitted a 40-page reply.
Unnamed Case from upc_ip.db v.Ex Parte
Order
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection concerning European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers pharmaceutical formulations of a HER2 antibody (Perjeta®). The applicants alleged that the defendants were preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®, potentially infringing the patent. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to conduct the evidence preservation and inspection at the defendants' premises, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the outcome.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (the proprietors of EP 3 401 335 B1, relating to pharmaceutical formulations of HER2 antibodies used in Perjeta®) applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection against Organon entities and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc., who are preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to inspect the defendants' premises and preserve evidence of alleged patent infringement, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the evidence obtained.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV v.Barco NV
Yealink applied for rectification of a final order issued by the Local Division Brussels on 21 March 2025 in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, seeking to amend the operative part to explicitly characterize the cost award as an 'interim award' and add a reference to Rule 211(1)(d) RoP. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the grounds for rectification under R. 353 RoP are limited to clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions, none of which were present. The Court reasoned that the order must be read as a whole, and the existing reference to R. 150(2) RoP already encompasses the concept of an interim award of costs.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
Barco NV, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 732 827, filed an application for provisional measures against Yealink entities before the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court. The Court held that the LD Brussels was territorially competent to hear the application, but dismissed the application for provisional measures due to lack of urgency, finding that Barco had acted negligently or hesitated in seeking relief. Barco was ordered to bear the legal costs of the Yealink defendants up to the applicable ceiling of €112,000.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy and Others
Procedural order from the UPC Local Division Helsinki in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3295663. AIM Sport Development AG sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to amend its Statement of Claims and under Rule 305 RoP to add a new defendant, TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited. The Court granted the application, allowing the amendments and the addition of the new defendant, while giving the existing defendants three months from the date of the order to lodge their Statement of Defence.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants in microbial fuel cells, to be valid and infringed by equivalence by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court applied a four-question test for assessing infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringement, recall infringing products, provide information, publish a corrective notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for non-compliance.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) ruled that European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants, is valid and infringed by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court found infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringing activities, provide information, publish a recall notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for any further infringement.
Anonymous Claimant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Court of First Instance, Local Division Brussels) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 331 036. Following an Interim Conference, the court addressed settlement prospects, evidence offers, the value of the case, and guidelines for the oral hearing. The court determined the value of the case at €250,000, rejected one evidence offer as moot, and set detailed procedural directions for the upcoming oral hearing.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.
Amgen Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Sanofi and Regeneron entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 3 666 797 and their drug Praluent (Alirocumab). After the Central Division revoked the patent in its entirety on 16 July 2024, both parties agreed to stay the infringement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation decision.
Nelissen v.OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV
This is a procedural decision from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning patent EP 2 331 036. The defendants (OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV) sought review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order that had permitted the claimant (Mr. Nelissen) to supplement his Reply with new facts, an equivalence-based infringement argument, and a modified petitum. The panel conducted a marginal review and confirmed the Judge-Rapporteur's decision in all respects, while granting the defendants leave to appeal.
Anonymous Claimant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP 2 331 036. The defendants filed a procedural application objecting to the claimant's inclusion of new facts, an equivalence-based infringement argument, and an adjusted petitum in the Reply to the Statement of Defence. The Judge-Rapporteur rejected the defendants' main request, holding that the amendments were consistent with the procedural-evolutionary course of litigation and the purpose of Rule 13 RoP, but granted a two-week extension for the defendants to file their Rejoinder.
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.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315, held by Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. Following an oral hearing on 30 January 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to have the settlement confirmed. The court confirmed the settlement, issued a cost decision based on the parties' agreement, and ordered that the details of the settlement and cost arrangement be treated as confidential.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2137782. The defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the court had to decide whether to hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly or to bifurcate. Both parties requested a joint hearing, and the court ordered that it would proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA.
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.