Wiem Samoud
20 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
20 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal against the revocation of EP 3 498 115. This was possible because the opposing party, NJOY Netherlands B.V., consented to the withdrawal. While the proceedings were closed, the court upheld the general principle that the withdrawing appellant is considered unsuccessful and must cover the costs incurred by the successful party (NJOY) for the appeal stage.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application to withdraw an appeal in a patent revocation case involving vaping technology. The court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal after NJOY consented, closing the appellate proceedings. Despite allowing the withdrawal, the court applied standard cost rules, ruling that Juul Labs, as the appellant who withdrew, was ultimately unsuccessful and must cover NJOY's legal costs for the appeal.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court permitted the withdrawal of an appeal filed by VMR Products LLC against a partial revocation ruling. The key factor enabling the withdrawal was the consent of NJOY Netherlands B.V., which negated any claim that NJOY had a legitimate interest in the ongoing litigation. While the appeal was withdrawn, the Court upheld the general principle that the unsuccessful party (the appellant) must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a significant revocation proceeding, the UPC Central Division ruled against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, declaring European patent EP 2 671 173 revoked. The patent covered an innovative system for location-aware internet searching while walking. The Court found that the claims lacked inventive step over existing prior art, leading to the complete invalidation of the patent. This decision underscores the rigorous standards applied by the UPC in assessing novelty and inventiveness.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal against a revocation action concerning EP 3 456 214, a patent covering vaporizer technology. The court confirmed the initial finding that several claims lacked inventive step due to anticipation by prior art (Pan). Furthermore, the judgment provided important procedural guidance on how parties must manage new evidence and arguments when responding to applications to amend under the UPC's strict front-loaded system. This case is significant for practitioners navigating complex revocation proceedings in the unified patent court.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural order, the UPC granted Microsoft Corporation's request to keep detailed legal invoices and billing information confidential during infringement proceedings against Suinno Mobile. The court found that this data, which details hours spent and fees paid, constitutes highly sensitive business information revealing corporate strategy and financial commitment. While granting confidentiality access only to specific counsel, the Court declined to impose a fixed penalty for non-compliance.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter where NJOY Netherlands B.V. sought to withdraw an appeal against Juul Labs International Inc. The underlying action was a revocation suit brought before the CFI, which had previously dismissed it. Given that both parties consented to the withdrawal, the CoA permitted the closure of the proceedings. This case highlights the importance of party consent in procedural matters under the UPC Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court granted a stay of revocation proceedings following an appeal by Juul Labs against a prior finding. The request was based on parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal which had been accelerated. Given that the EPO proceedings were expected to conclude rapidly relative to the scheduled UPC hearing, the court ruled in favor of granting the stay, allowing both parties to await the final outcome at the EPO.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this appeal action for revocation, the UPC Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings upon request by Juul Labs International, Inc., pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO Boards of Appeal. The court determined that since the EPO proceedings were accelerated and expected to conclude rapidly relative to the UPC's hearing schedule, staying the appeal was appropriate under R. 295(a) RoP. This decision highlights the practical mechanism for managing concurrent litigation between the Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Office.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural application concerning an infringement action, the UPC Central Division addressed Microsoft Corporation's request for a decision by default against it. Although Microsoft failed to provide security for costs as required, the Court exercised its discretion and rejected the application. The ruling emphasizes that while rules allow for default judgments, the court must ensure sufficient evidentiary certainty exists before proceeding, thereby prioritizing substantive fairness over strict procedural adherence.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In this procedural application, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought to have the infringement action against them declared manifestly inadmissible due to alleged issues with party representation. The UPC Central Division rejected this request, establishing a key principle that procedural defects like lack of valid representation do not automatically invalidate an action but require the court to grant time for remedy. This decision reinforces the requirement that 'manifest inadmissibility' must be immediately evident from the pleadings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural ruling concerning an infringement action, the UPC addressed the issue of invalid party representation for the claimant. Despite the respondent's request to dismiss the case due to the representative's lack of authority, the court rejected this argument. The panel ruled that while the initial representation was defective, it did not invalidate the entire proceeding. Instead, the claimant was granted 30 days to appoint a new, valid representative who would be required to ratify all prior submissions.
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC decision addressed an application by the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office seeking access to a case file. The Court ruled that while public access is generally the rule, the paramount interest in maintaining the integrity and impartiality of ongoing proceedings outweighs the applicant's general interest in accessing specific documents. The ruling emphasizes that for purely legal issues, knowledge derived from existing court orders or pending appeals may suffice, negating the need for confidential file inspection.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In this UPC decision concerning an infringement action, the Court addressed a request by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to reduce its security for costs from EUR 300,000 to EUR 100,000. The Court ultimately denied the reduction request. A key finding was that the determination of the value of proceedings—which dictates the security amount—must be based on the objective interest at the time the action was filed, making subsequent changes in claimed damages irrelevant for this purpose.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural application concerning security for costs, the UPC Central Division dismissed Microsoft Corporation's request to increase the required financial guarantee against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. Although Microsoft argued that increased litigation complexity and the respondent's admitted financial strain warranted higher security, the Court found no new circumstances justifying an amendment. This decision reinforces the principle that initial assessments of recoverable costs, based on the claimant's objective interest at filing, remain relevant even as proceedings progress.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This procedural order addressed Microsoft Corporation's request for leave to appeal a prior decision concerning claim amendments and damages reduction in an infringement action. The Court of First Instance ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing that granting such leave requires demonstrating either differing interpretations among UPC judges or a concrete interest served by the appeal. This ruling reinforces the principle of efficiency within the UPC proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC decision addressed an application by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy seeking leave to reduce the damages claimed in an infringement action against Microsoft Corporation. The court ruled that limiting a claim, such as reducing the monetary value of damages, falls under Rule 263(3) and must be granted if properly explained. This reinforces the principle that procedural efficiency allows for necessary adjustments to claims during litigation, provided they are adequately justified.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC granted Microsoft Corporation's request for Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to provide security for legal costs. The court determined that based on evidence of the respondent's recent incorporation and lack of substantial assets, there was a legitimate concern that any future cost orders might not be recoverable. This ruling reinforces the Court's power to manage litigation risk by requiring financially vulnerable parties to secure their liabilities.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This UPC decision, while addressing procedural matters related to confidentiality and representative independence, confirms that certain contractual information qualifies as a protected business secret under EU law. The panel set aside the initial secrecy order but granted leave to appeal due to the novelty of the issue concerning representative independence before the UPC. This case highlights the intersection between trade secret protection and complex procedural rules within the Unified Patent Court framework.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In this case management order, Microsoft Corporation challenged a previous decision regarding the manifest inadmissibility of its infringement action. The UPC Panel upheld the initial rejection, ruling that the alleged lack of independence of the claimant's representative was not 'manifest' enough to warrant dismissal under Rule 361 RoP. Furthermore, the court found that the statement of claim sufficiently addressed the request for damages. This decision reinforces the high threshold required for declaring an action manifestly inadmissible in UPC proceedings.
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.