Carrier Corporation v. BITZER Electronics A/S

Ona Patents SLvsGoogle Ireland Limited o.a.

Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, in which the Claimant Ona Patents SL sought review of a case management order regarding the scheduling of an interim conference. The Claimant argued that an interim conference was needed to discuss the relevance of arguments from related proceedings against other defendants that had been settled. The court dismissed the request as admissible but unfounded, holding that the decision to hold an interim conference lies within the discretion of the Presiding Judge and that the terminated parallel proceedings are legally independent of the present case.

myStromer AGvsRevolt Zycling AG

Unified Patent Court decision.

10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard CollegevsVizgen, Inc.

This order concerns the withdrawal of three appeals filed by 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College against orders of the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning the production of documents in infringement proceedings against Vizgen, Inc. relating to EP 4108782. The appellants applied for withdrawal of the appeals with the respondent's consent, and neither party sought a cost decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered the decision to be entered in the register.

Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SLvsSun Patent Trust

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Vivo's request for a stay of first instance proceedings pending its appeal against orders of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Vivo's preliminary objections. The preliminary objections challenged the UPC's jurisdiction to determine FRAND license terms. The Court held that the unprecedented nature of the jurisdictional question and the costs of preparing a defence did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, and that Vivo's interest in avoiding costs did not outweigh Sun Patent Trust's interest in obtaining a decision without unnecessary delay.

Tiroler Rohre GmbHvsSSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH

The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court found that SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH infringed EP 2 839 083 B9, owned by Tiroler Rohre GmbH, by manufacturing and selling pile tips (GS115, GS140, GS170). The court rejected the defendants' arguments that their products lacked a free-standing web, a flat support surface, or actual contact between the pile end and support surface, holding that the support surface only needs to be suitable for supporting the pile end. The court also upheld the validity of the patent in amended form and granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, information obligations, publication rights, and damages.