Short Summary
In this legal proceeding before The Hague Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-22) under reference UPC_17AE80A1FE, Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc., 2237 Faraday Ave, CA 92008, appeared in dispute with 1) Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Detailed Summary
1
ORDER
of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 22 July 2026
APPELLANT
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc., 2237 Faraday Ave, CA 92008, Carlsbad, USA
represented by Wim Maas, Diptanil Debbarma and Faziel Abdul, Winston Taylor N.V.
RESPONDENTS
1) Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murrysville, PA 15668 USA
3) Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Gewerbstraße 17, 82211 Herrsching am Ammersee,
Germany
represented by Hendrik Albert Pastink, Michael Adrianus Josephus Ras, Arie Jan Willem Tol, and
Ceren Okat, Philips International B.V., and Roeland Grijpink, Hoyng Rokh Monegier B.V.
PATENT AT ISSUE
EP 2 437 696 B2
PANEL
Panel 1c
Klaus Grabinski, presiding judge and president of the Court of Appeal
Paolo Catallozzi, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur
Peter Blok, legally qualified judge
Christoph Schober, technically qualified judge
Giorgio Checcacci, technically qualified judge
DECIDING JUDGE
This order has been issued by the judge-rapporteur
Reference no:
UPC-COA-63/2026
UPC-COA-64/2026
2
LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
English
IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
□ Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, The Hague Local Division,
dated 3 March 2026
Numbers attributed by the Court of First Instance: UPC_CFI_43/2025 and UPC_CFI_103/2025
OF FACTS AND PARTIES’ REQUESTS
1. By Statement of claim filed on 21 January 2025, the appellant commenced infringement
proceedings before the Local Division The Hague against the respondents, alleging infringement
of the patent at issue, which relates to a wearable position therapy device for influencing the
sleeping position of a user, by the respondents’ NightBalance device.
2. The respondents contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent,
challenging the validity of the patent on several grounds, including lack of novelty and lack of
inventive step.
3. In the course of the written procedure, the respondents introduced, inter alia, an inventive-step
attack starting from Japanese patent application publication JP H03-49748 (JP ‘748). In response
to that attack, the appellant filed an application to amend the patent and submitted Auxiliary
Request 1, which limited claim 1 by specifying that the position detector comprises an
accelerometer.
4. By the impugned decision of 3 March 2026, the Local Division dismissed the infringement action
and revoked the patent in its entirety. The Local Division held that claim 1 of the patent as
maintained lacked novelty over JP ‘748. It further held that Auxiliary Request 1 lacked inventive
step in view of JP ‘748 in combination with common general knowledge.
5. The impugned decision disposed of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for
revocation. The appellant subsequently lodged separate appeals against that decision on 4 May
2026 and, on 3 July 2026, filed Statements of grounds of appeal in the corresponding appeal
proceedings. In those proceedings, the appellant challenges both the finding that the patent as
maintained lacks novelty and the finding that Auxiliary Request 1 lacks inventive step.
6. Together with the Statements of grounds of appeal, the appellant filed Applications to amend
the patent containing eleven additional auxiliary requests. The appellant submits that those
additional auxiliary requests constitute a legitimate response to the reasoning adopted by the
Local Division and requests that they be admitted pursuant to Article 73(4) UPCA and Rule 222.2
RoP.
7. By objections dated 17 July 2026, the respondents requested the Court to determine that the
additional auxiliary requests have not been validly introduced into the appeal proceedings. In
3
the alternative, they request that, should any of those auxiliary requests be admitted, t
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before The Hague Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc., 2237 Faraday Ave, CA 92008, vs 1) Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
AorticLab srlvsEmboline, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Munich Local Division that had required AorticLab to provide security for costs of €200,000 in an infringement action brought by Emboline concerning EP 2 129 425. The Court held that Article 69(4) UPCA deliberately restricts the right to request security for costs to defendants, and that this rationale does not extend to a claimant in an infringement action seeking security against a defendant who has filed a counterclaim for revocation.
Motorola Mobility LLCvsRespondent
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_41/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in the main proceedings related to European Patent 3 780 758 delivered on 06/08/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim: 30/01/2024 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Defendant
UPC Decision UPC-000540vsRespondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities before the Unified Patent Court Local Division Mannheim for infringement of EP 3 511 174 B1, a European patent relating to lithographic printing plate precursors. The proceedings concerning the UK part of the patent were separated following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court held that while it has jurisdiction to decide infringement of the UK part of a European bundle patent, it cannot revoke the UK part with erga omnes effect, and the defendants may raise invalidity as a defense with inter partes effect only.
ULRICH HERPICH E.K, HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY , MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L., Alpinestars S.p.A., ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A, OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L.vsDainese S.p.A.
This case concerns an application by Dainese S.p.A. for the protection of confidential information in proceedings related to security for costs requested by the defendants. Dainese sought to restrict access to certain financial information and exhibits, while the defendants agreed with the confidentiality designation but requested broader access for their representatives and key personnel. The Court addressed the balance between protecting confidential business information and ensuring the defendants' right to a fair trial.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SEvsIPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE and the counterclaim for revocation filed by IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG jointly. The decision was made before the close of the written proceedings for reasons of procedural economy and to allow early assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.