Short Summary
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated July 11, 2024, concerning Apple's request to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the deadline for Ona Patents SL to file its response to the appeal. The court rejected Apple's acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in expediting the proceedings did not outweigh Ona's interests in a proper proceeding. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action by Ona against Apple based on EP 2 263 098, and Apple's prior request to change the procedural language from German to English, which had been rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance.
Detailed Summary
This order concerns an appeal filed by Apple (comprising Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, and Apple Inc.) against a decision of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court.
Background and Procedural History:
On March 14, 2024, Ona Patents SL filed an infringement action against Apple before the Local Division Düsseldorf (LKD) based on European Patent EP 2 263 098, which concerns 'position determination of mobile objects based on mutually sent signals.' On May 10, 2024, Apple requested a change of the procedural language from German to English (the language of the patent) pursuant to Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure. Ona submitted its written observations on May 24, 2024. On June 14, 2024, Apple filed a request to submit observations on Ona's submission (which already contained a reply), but this request was rejected by the LKD on June 20, 2024. On June 18, 2024, the President of the Court of First Instance rejected Apple's request to change the procedural language.
Apple's Appeal and Acceleration Request:
Apple filed an appeal seeking reversal of the President's order and a ruling that the procedural language should be English. On July 1, 2024, Apple also filed a request to accelerate the appeal proceedings, seeking to shorten the deadline for Ona to file its response to the appeal to July 5, 2024. The Court of Appeal noted that since the appeal was served on Ona only on July 9, 2024, the request was interpreted as seeking to give Ona only four days to file its response.
Court's Reasoning:
The Court of Appeal (Second Panel, comprising Presiding Judge Rian Kalden, Judge Ingeborg Simonsson, and Judge Patricia Rombach) rejected Apple's acceleration request for several reasons:
1. Apple's argument that Ona was already familiar with Apple's arguments due to Apple's June 14, 2024 reply to Ona's observations was rejected. The court noted that under Rule 323 RoP, a reply to the respondent's observations is not provided for. The LKD had rejected Apple's request to allow further submissions, and the President did not consider the reply in her June 18, 2024 order. Therefore, there was no reason for Ona to have taken notice of this reply before service of the appeal.
2. Apple failed to demonstrate any particular interest in having the response filed before a specific date prior to the expiry of the 15-day period provided in Rule 224.2(b) RoP.
3. Considering Ona's interests and the principles of proportionality, fairness, and equity, and noting that Apple took significantly longer to file its appeal grounds than the time it sought to grant Ona for filing its response, the court found no basis for the requested shortening of the deadline.
Decision:
The Court of Appeal rejected Apple's request for acceleration of the appeal proceedings. The order was issued on July 11, 2024, and concluded the proceedings under App_39101/2024.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG and Others vs Ona Patents SL is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KGvsVibrantz GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on June 2, 2025, in consolidated proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. Following an interim video hearing on May 28, 2025, the presiding judge set deadlines for the submission of consolidated formal requests, confirmed the date for the oral hearing on July 1, 2025, and fixed the dispute value at €3.125 million in total. The court also provided preliminary indications on the admissibility of the revocation counterclaim for Germany and on the scope of the defendant's prior submissions.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entitiesvsAccord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in four consolidated sets of patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for treating castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva generic pharmaceutical companies across various UPC member states. The order addresses preliminary objections, sets further procedural deadlines, and confirms dates for interim conferences and the oral hearing.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V.vsInverquark Deutschland GmbH & Inverquark GmbH
This case concerns a request by the respondents (Inverquark entities) for a supplementary expert opinion and postponement of a decision on confidentiality interests in the context of an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected the request for a supplementary expert opinion, finding no legal basis and that it would be inconsistent with the purpose of evidence preservation proceedings. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant since no confidentiality interests were asserted, and set a deadline for the applicant to file a main action.
Nokia Solutions and Networks OyvsZhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court against multiple entities of the Geely Group concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333, which relates to devices and methods for efficient allocation of resources in a mobile communication system. Several defendants filed objections under R. 19 of the Rules of Procedure, challenging both the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court and the local jurisdiction of the Mannheim Local Chamber. The court rejected all objections, finding that the international jurisdiction was established and that the joint action against all group-affiliated defendants was permissible before the Mannheim Local Chamber.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbHvsBelparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European Patent EP3812870 before the Central Division Paris. Belparts counterclaimed for infringement and applied to amend the patent, but the parties subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement and both applied to withdraw their respective actions. The Court permitted the withdrawal of both the revocation action and the counterclaim for infringement, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the decision to be entered on the Register, with no cost decision issued.
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.