Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v. Ex Parte

Maxell, Ltd.vsSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2061230. The court dismissed Samsung's request to extend the deadline for filing its rejoinder/reply submissions and admitted Maxell's 44 auxiliary requests into the proceedings. The court found the number of auxiliary requests reasonable given the large number of invalidity attacks asserted by Samsung and the manageable number of new features actually introduced.

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbHvsAmgen, Inc.

Unified Patent Court decision.

IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbHvsBelparts Group N.V.

This is a procedural order from the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3812870. Belparts Group N.V. requested under Rule 340.1 RoP that its counterclaim for infringement pending before the CD Paris be heard together with its infringement action pending before the LD Munich. The court rejected the request, finding that allowing it would still result in multiple oral hearings and multiple decisions concerning the same patent, with infringement and revocation actions not being heard and decided at the same time.

Chint Solar Netherlands B.V. and OthersvsJingAo Solar Co., Ltd.

The defendants in patent infringement proceedings (Chint and Astronergy entities) applied for an order requiring the claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. (a Chinese company), to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division Munich granted the application, ordering the claimant to provide security of €200,000 by 30 April 2025, reasoning that China's failure to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention justified an assumption that any UPC cost reimbursement order would not be enforceable in China or only in an unduly burdensome way.

Valeo Systemes D'essuyagevsRobert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, Robert Bosch Produktie S.A, Robert Bosch DOO, Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.

The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility of Valeo's appeal against an order of the judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris section) that granted a preliminary objection filed by four Bosch entities, ruling the Paris division lacked jurisdiction and transferring the infringement action to the Düsseldorf local division with English as the language of proceedings. The Court held that the contested order, which granted the preliminary objection without terminating proceedings against one of the parties, fell under neither the first nor the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP, and applied the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP by analogy to declare the appeal admissible. The Court also rejected the Bosch entities' subsidiary request to suspend the first instance proceedings.