Zweiter Spruchk
7 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
7 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH; expert e-Commerce GmbH
This decision from the UPC Board of Appeal addresses procedural matters following an oral hearing in a complex infringement and revocation case. The claimant, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., attempted to submit additional written arguments after the proceedings concluded. The Court firmly ruled that once the oral phase is complete, the matter is ready for judgment, and further submissions are generally inadmissible unless explicitly permitted by the court under strict rules.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.ehemalige Patentinhaber
This UPC appellate decision addresses a complex issue regarding cost allocation in patent litigation where one party initiates an invalidity action and the other subsequently waives their rights to the patent. The court ruled that equitable considerations can override strict procedural requirements concerning the timing of a waiver and revocation request under Art. 105a EPC. This provides significant relief for patentees who may have delayed formalizing their withdrawal due to complex legal circumstances.
SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This UPC Appeal Board decision addressed a motion to admit new evidence in an ongoing infringement case involving SharkNinja and Dyson regarding EP 2 043 492. SharkNinja sought to introduce documents from a US patent litigation, arguing that the opposing party's interpretation of key features was crucial for determining novelty and inventive step. The Appeal Board ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that evidence from other proceedings must meet strict relevance criteria and cannot simply contradict arguments made in the current case.
Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters related to an infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox concerning a snow avalanche transceiver (LVS) device protected by EP 3 466 498. The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals regarding interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's decision, but Mammut was ordered to cover additional provisional costs incurred by Ortovox during the appellate process.
Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters within a patent infringement case involving Mammut and Ortovox regarding an LVS device (EP 3 466 498). The court focused heavily on the scope of appeals concerning interim measures, clarifying that arguments must be clearly presented in the initial filing. While the core dispute was about patent validity/infringement, the ruling ultimately dismissed Mammut's appeal and ordered them to cover additional provisional costs.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Ona Patents SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the timing of written submissions in an ongoing patent dispute involving Apple and Ona Patents SL. The court strictly interpreted the Rules of Procedure, holding that requests for further pleadings must be filed before the rapporteur concludes the written phase and schedules the oral hearing. Consequently, the appellants' late submission was rejected, allowing the case to proceed as planned.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC appellate case involved an application by 10x Genomics to reopen proceedings following a ruling that overturned an initial injunction against NanoString Technologies. 10x argued that the original judgment violated fundamental procedural rights, specifically regarding the court's reliance on its own technical expertise rather than party-submitted evidence. The Appellate Court firmly rejected this claim, stating that judicial assessment of facts and evidence is not subject to review in a reopening application, thereby upholding the previous decisions.
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.