Udo Matter
5 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
5 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a dispute over the confidentiality of business information disclosed during infringement proceedings. EOFlow sought to classify internal data, such as turnover numbers and pricing, as confidential under R. 262.2 RoP. The court ruled against EOFlow, emphasizing that mere disclosure in litigation does not automatically grant trade secret protection if specific protective measures are absent. This reinforces the strict requirements for maintaining confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for confidentiality concerning information exchanged during infringement litigation. The court ruled that once a party provides information without restriction under a court order, the recipient loses the basis to restrict its use. This clarifies the scope of confidentiality protections in the UPC, emphasizing that specific requests (R. 262A RoP) are needed when disclosure is mandated by the court.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case, Toyota Motor Europe sought to withdraw a revocation action against Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG concerning patent EP 3 876 490. The Court granted the withdrawal request, formally terminating the proceedings under Rule 265 RoP. Furthermore, the court ruled on the reimbursement of court fees, awarding Toyota a partial refund based on when the withdrawal occurred relative to the procedural stages.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (jointly referred to as 'the Abbott companies')
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted DexCom, Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiaries. Concurrently, the Abbott companies agreed to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. This mutual withdrawal resulted in the closure of the proceedings, meaning the patent EP 3 435 866 remains fully in force across all relevant territories. The decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding withdrawals during appeal.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated companies (collectively 'the Abbott companies')
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of Appeal granted DexCom Inc.'s request to withdraw its infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and associated companies. This withdrawal followed mutual consent from both parties, allowing the court to declare all proceedings closed. The decision is significant as it reinforces the flexibility of the UPC system regarding case closure when parties agree, while also providing a clear procedural path for fee reimbursement.
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.