Vorsitzende Richterin Ingeborg Simonsson
4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal, dated June 17, 2025, addresses an objection (Gegenvorstellung) filed by Knaus Tabbert AG against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute concerns alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The Court of Appeal held that an objection that merely challenges the reasoning expressed in the rejecting order, without raising new substantive grounds, is inadmissible.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute. SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 643 717 relating to a color and light mixing collective optic, brought an infringement action against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH. STRABAG had installed LED variable traffic signs at certain locations (A12, VKP Kundl, RFB Innsbruck) that it had sourced from Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., which intervened in support of STRABAG. The Court of Appeal issued an order on May 26, 2025, addressing STRABAG's application for suspensive effect against the first instance decision of January 15, 2025.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH
This is an appeal order concerning a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The appellant Knaus Tabbert AG sought to stay enforcement of a first-instance order, arguing that the plaintiffs' financial situation required security for enforcement. The Court of Appeal held that the ordering of security for enforcement lies within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that a defendant must raise facts justifying such security already at first instance, so that a request for suspensive effect generally cannot rely on the plaintiff's financial situation if this could have been raised earlier.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.,
The Court of Appeal issued an order concerning Belkin's application for suspensive effect (stay) of a first instance order dated September 13, 2024, in a patent infringement action brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. regarding EP 2 867 997. The appeal involved both the Belkin corporate entities and individual managing directors. The court addressed the requirements for applications for suspensive effect, the standard for granting such effect, and the question of whether managing directors of an infringing company can be held liable as intermediaries under Article 63 EPGÜ.
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.