Wiem Samoud
20 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
20 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal against a first-instance decision revoking European Patent EP 3 498 115, following the dismissal of Juul Labs' appeal at the EPO Boards of Appeal. The Court ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings as the unsuccessful party and granted a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the rule applicable before the 1 January 2026 amendment.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 3 613 453. After the Boards of Appeal of the EPO revoked the patent during the appeal proceedings, VMR Products (the appellant/defendant) applied to withdraw its appeal, which NJOY (the respondent/claimant) consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered VMR Products to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 20% refund of the appeal court fees under the version of R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP applicable before 1 January 2026.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the revocation of European Patent EP 3 430 921. After the Central Division Paris revoked the patent and the EPO Boards of Appeal subsequently confirmed the revocation, Juul Labs applied to withdraw its appeal under R. 265 RoP, which NJOY consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the pre-amendment R. 370.9(b) RoP.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This case concerns a counterclaim for revocation of European patent EP 2 671 173, which relates to a system for browsing the Internet by walking to discover location-based search results. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the claimed subject matter lacked novelty and inventive step over prior art, particularly in view of document 'BP07' alone and in combination with 'BP08' and 'BP16'.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
VMR Products LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 456 214 relating to a vaporizer (electronic cigarette), appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division that revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, confirming that the patent's claims, including independent claim 1 and dependent claims, lack an inventive step over the prior art, particularly the Pan reference. VMR Products was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation applied for an order under Rule 262A RoP to treat certain exhibit information as strictly confidential in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The information in question consisted of invoices from Microsoft's law firm detailing hours worked, tasks performed, and billing rates. The respondent objected, arguing no specific confidentiality grounds were provided. The Court granted the confidentiality request, finding the information met the criteria for confidential treatment and attorney-client privilege, but dismissed the request for a predetermined penalty payment.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against Juul Labs International Inc. regarding EP 3 504 991 before the Paris Central Division, which dismissed the action and ordered NJOY to bear the costs. NJOY appealed the cost decision, but subsequently applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP, with Juul Labs' consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
In an appeal from a revocation action concerning EP 3 498 115, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs, with the agreement of NJOY. The stay was ordered pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where oral proceedings had been scheduled for 17 October 2025. The court found that a decision from the Boards of Appeal could be expected rapidly relative to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Juul Labs' application to stay appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning EP 3 430 921, pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Both parties had agreed to the stay, and the Boards of Appeal had accelerated their proceedings with oral proceedings planned for 20 October 2025, which the court found would result in a decision before or shortly after the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, requested a decision by default against the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, for failing to provide security for costs within the time limit set by the Court. The Court held that even where a party's default is evident and unjustified, it retains discretionary power and is not obligated to issue a decision by default. The application was rejected because the written pleadings at the time of default did not permit a sufficiently confident assessment of the contested validity of the patent and the absence of infringement, and the Court considered it more appropriate to proceed with an in-depth examination at the oral hearing.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action and counterclaimant for revocation, filed a procedural application seeking to have Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action declared manifestly inadmissible on the ground that Suinno's appointed representative held extensive administrative and financial powers within the company and was therefore ineligible to represent it. The Court of First Instance rejected the request, holding that the lack of valid representation requires granting the party an opportunity to remedy the deficit rather than declaring the action inadmissible, and that the matter required further in-depth analysis beyond what constitutes manifest inadmissibility.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) addressed a representation issue in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Following a Court of Appeal order confirming that the claimant's appointed representative could not serve due to holding extensive administrative and financial powers within Suinno, the court declared the representative invalid, granted Suinno 30 days to appoint a new representative (who must ratify prior pleadings), and suspended procedural deadlines during that period.
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy & Microsoft Corporation
The Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to the written pleadings and evidence in an infringement action between Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The applicant argued a specific interest based on the status and representation rights of in-house European Patent Attorneys before the UPC, an issue addressed in prior orders in the proceedings. The Court of First Instance (Paris seat) dismissed the application, holding that the interest in protecting the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in accessing the case file, as the matter was purely legal and of a general nature.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation filed an application requesting that Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy be ordered to provide additional security for legal costs of at least EUR 500,000 (alternatively EUR 300,000), on top of the EUR 300,000 security already ordered by the Court. The Court characterized the request as one to modify the existing security by increasing its amount, and after reviewing the arguments, dismissed the application, finding that the new circumstances cited by Microsoft did not warrant a reassessment of the adequacy of the security already ordered.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought review of a security for costs order of EUR 300,000 imposed against it in its infringement action against Microsoft Corporation, requesting reduction to EUR 100,000 based on its subsequent reduction of damages claimed. The Court of First Instance dismissed the application, holding that the reduction in damages claimed was immaterial to the value of the proceedings, which reflects the claimant's objective interest at the time of filing, and that the applicant's other arguments constituted a critique of the original order that could only be raised on appeal.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation sought leave to appeal an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) that had granted the respondent, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, leave to reduce its damages claim to €2 million in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Microsoft argued that leave to appeal would clarify the scope and limits of the Court's powers in interpreting a party's request under Article 76(1) UPCA and the admissible scope of a Rule 263 RoP application. The panel rejected the request, finding that the issue raised was not the subject of different interpretations by UPC judges and would not affect the final decision on the merits.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, the claimant in a patent infringement action against Microsoft Corporation before the Central Division (Paris seat), applied under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to reduce its damages claim from the originally stated amount to €2 million, citing more accurate evidence. Microsoft opposed, arguing the application fell outside Rule 263, was a litigation tactic to reduce security for costs, and failed to meet the rule's requirements. The Court granted the application, holding that a reduction of damages constitutes a limitation of the claim which must be granted under Rule 263(3) when filed with due explanation and unconditionally, but rejected Suinno's request to reconsider fees already paid.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action (UPC_CFI_164/2024) concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, applied for an order requiring the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, to provide security for legal costs. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) granted the application, finding credible evidence that Suinno's financial situation posed a real risk that any costs order would be unrecoverable, and ordered Suinno to provide security of EUR 300,000 within one month. The Court also declared inadmissible Suinno's counter-request seeking reciprocal security from Microsoft.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in an underlying infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, sought panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order rejecting its application to have the claimant's action declared manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order, holding that the alleged lack of independence of the claimant's representative and the alleged insufficiency of the statement of claim did not meet the threshold of 'manifest' inadmissibility. The panel also declined to grant leave to appeal or refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court reviewed a confidentiality order issued in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. While the panel agreed that the documents (a patent license agreement and a patent purchase & licence agreement) contained business secrets worthy of protection, it set aside the confidentiality order because the respondent's representative was simultaneously its managing director and main shareholder, lacking the independence required under Article 48(5) of the UPCA and Article 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct. The application for confidentiality was declared inadmissible, though those already admitted to the confidentiality ring remained bound by non-disclosure obligations, and leave to appeal was granted.
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.