PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v. Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft

Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited & Eurep GmbHvsDyson Technology Limited

This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a preliminary injunction obtained by Dyson Technology Limited against Dreame International, Eurep GmbH, Teqphone GmbH, and Dreame Technology AB for alleged infringement of European Patent 3 119 235 relating to a handheld hair care appliance. The Court of Appeal partially stayed the proceedings and referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48, particularly regarding jurisdiction over a third-state defendant (Dreame International) in relation to Spain and over an EU-based authorized representative (Eurep).

Sun Patent TrustvsRoku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an opposition filed by the defendants against a patent infringement action. The court rejected the defendants' opposition, which challenged the UPC's jurisdiction on grounds that the UPCA is incompatible with EU primary law, and held that such arguments are not valid grounds for opposition under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The court also found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged infringement for jurisdictional purposes and that proof of the representative's authorization for the opt-out withdrawal was not required unless contested.

Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbBvsHP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. and Nokia Technologies Oy

This procedural order concerns an application by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB, a German law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from a terminated revocation action (UPC_CFI_181/2024) involving patent EP2661892. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court granted access to most requested documents with personal data redacted, applying the Court of Appeal's Ocado v Autostore principles, but rejected access to two specific exhibits. The court also granted leave to appeal and suspended the effects of the order pending any appeal.

Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Public Access to the Register)vsEx Parte

Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from provisional measures proceedings (UPC_CFI_130/2024) concerning patent EP2713879, involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. as applicant and Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. as defendants. Both Abbott and Sibio c.s. opposed the request, arguing that the proceedings were still ongoing due to a pending appeal and that Powell Gilbert lacked a sufficiently specific legitimate interest. The Local Division The Hague applied the criteria from Ocado v AutoStore and granted access, holding that the general public interest in understanding and scrutinizing court decisions outweighs the integrity of proceedings once first instance proceedings have ended, even where an appeal is pending.

Polidoro S.p.a.vsBekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA

Polidoro S.p.a., the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 037 175 concerning a premixed burner, sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and its parent company NV Bekaert SA for patent infringement regarding two types of premixed burners of the 'Multipat' series. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claim 1 as granted (B1) and claim 1 as maintained in limited form (B2), dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall/removal/destruction, and information, with costs split 75% to defendants and 25% to the claimant.