Zana
41 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
41 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
Order
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Sioen NV (SIOEN) in infringement proceedings brought by TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH (TEXPORT) before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP2186428, relating to tissue construction for protective clothing. SIOEN sought dismissal or stay of the UPC proceedings on the basis of parallel proceedings it had initiated before a Belgian national court, arguing that the Belgian court was first seised. The Court dismissed SIOEN's requests, finding that the parties in the parallel proceedings were not the same and that the conditions for staying or declining jurisdiction under Articles 29, 30, and 31 of the Brussels I recast Regulation were not met.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerns A. Menarini Diagnostics' request to classify certain portions of its Objection to an Application for provisional measures as confidential information. The Court granted confidentiality protection to both the technical descriptions of the Attacked Embodiment and Menarini's business figures, while establishing a restricted confidentiality club for access. The Court deferred the enforceability of the order to allow time for appeal.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of certain documents filed by Oerlikon in an infringement action regarding EP2145848. The court addressed the treatment of two documents: Document 37 (a Settlement Agreement with a Chinese operator) was withdrawn from evidence entirely, while Document 38 (commercial data) was granted confidential status with restricted access to a defined 'club' of individuals.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information filed by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG in an infringement action against Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding patent EP2145848. Oerlikon sought confidentiality protection for two documents (a Settlement Agreement with a Chinese third party and commercial data), requesting access be restricted to Himson's lawyers only. The Court excluded Document 37 from the evidentiary record entirely after Oerlikon withdrew it, and granted restricted 'club' access to Document 38 for Himson's lawyer, one technical consultant, and one natural person representing Himson.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Samsung Bioepis to prevent the marketing of Epysqli®, a biosimilar of Alexion's Soliris® (eculizumab), alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 relating to antibodies binding complement component 5 (C5) for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. While the court found that infringement of claim 2 could be established, it dismissed the application for provisional measures because it was not convinced with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid, given the likelihood that the EPO opposition division might revoke the patent.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Milan in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2145848. The order addresses various procedural matters following the Interim Conference, including the claimant's access to the expert's report from the prior evidence preservation order, deadlines for further submissions, the value of the case, and confirmation of the oral hearing date.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848 owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers. The order addresses preparations for an interim conference scheduled for 27 May 2024, balancing the principle of public transparency with the protection of confidential information, particularly regarding litigation costs.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request under Rule 262A RoP for a confidentiality order. The applicant Oerlikon sought to protect financial information (document no. 19) filed in preparation for the Interim Conference regarding costs documentation, requesting that access be limited to a 'club' of only Bhagat's lawyers, excluding the party itself. The respondent Bhagat did not oppose the request, and the court granted the confidentiality order, finding the information qualified as confidential under Article 58 UPCA.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (PMA) sought ex parte orders to preserve evidence and inspect the premises of AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2726230. After the orders were executed in October 2023, PMA failed to commence proceedings on the merits within the prescribed time limits and only requested access to the expert report in February 2024. The Local Division in Milan held the application for disclosure inadmissible, revoked the provisional measures, ordered restitution of the evidence, and awarded EUR 10,000 in legal fees against PMA.
C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell
This case concerns a review of an ex parte order for preserving evidence (saisie) issued by the Paris Local Division. C-Kore Systems Limited, proprietor of European patent EP 2 265 793 relating to subsea testing apparatus, obtained an ex parte saisie order against Novawell, a former customer alleged to have developed a competing product called 'SICOM'. Novawell sought to have the order revoked, but the Court dismissed the review application in its entirety, finding the request admissible, the evidence sufficient, and the measures compliant with both UPC rules and French national law.
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.