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.Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Knaus Tabbert's objection (Gegenvorstellung) against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect of its appeal. The court held that an objection under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which merely contests the reasoning of the rejecting order, is inadmissible, as Rule 9.1 governs procedural management measures and does not permit the alteration of final procedural orders.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH)
This order concerns an application by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., as intervener supporting defendant STRABAG, for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Vienna. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, finding that Chainzone failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision was manifestly incorrect or that fundamental procedural rights were violated. The substantive issues regarding patent claim interpretation and infringement will be addressed in the appeal proceedings.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
This is a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a first-instance decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The first-instance court had found that Knaus Tabbert infringed European Patent EP 3 356 109 (relating to a vehicle frame with foam resin structural parts) and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and provisional damages. The Court of Appeal rejected all of Knaus Tabbert's requests, holding that ordering security for enforcement is discretionary and that facts requiring such security must be raised at first instance.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc. and Others
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 concerning inductive power transmission systems. The Local Division Munich found infringement and ordered remedies against both the corporate entities and their managing directors. Belkin appealed and sought suspensive effect of the appeal. The Court of Appeal partially granted the request, ordering suspensive effect only with respect to enforcement against the individual directors, holding that a managing director of an infringing company cannot be considered a 'third party' under Article 63 EPGÜ for intermediary liability purposes.
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.