Short Summary
This procedural order concerns an application by Scandit AG under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file a reply to the respondent's appeal response in a patent infringement appeal. The underlying dispute involves EP 3 866 051, where the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) had issued an interim injunction on August 27, 2024 against Scandit for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10. Scandit sought leave to file a reply to address what it characterized as new arguments raised by Hand Held Products regarding features 1.7 to 1.9 of claim 1 and to introduce additional prior art.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Court of Appeal in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 866 051. The respondent and appellant is Scandit AG, a company based in Zürich, Switzerland, represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. The applicant and respondent on appeal is Hand Held Products, Inc., based in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA, represented by Bardehle Pagenberg. The presiding judge was Emmanuel Gougé, and the language of proceedings was German.
The underlying proceedings originated before the Court of First Instance, Local Division Munich, which on August 27, 2024 issued an interim injunction against Scandit for indirect infringement of patent claims 1 and 10 of the patent in dispute. The Court of First Instance dismissed Hand Held Products' remaining requests for interim measures as well as both parties' requests for cost allocation. Scandit filed an appeal against this order and submitted its appeal brief on September 11, 2024. Hand Held Products filed its response to the appeal on October 2, 2024.
On October 21, 2024, Scandit applied under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to file a reply to Hand Held Products' appeal response. Scandit argued that the contested decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of features 1.7 to 1.9 of claim 1 of the patent, specifically with reference to 'augmented reality.' Scandit contended that Hand Held Products, in its appeal response, referred for the first time to paragraph [0063] of the patent description, which required detailed analysis by Scandit. Additionally, Scandit argued that the reply was necessary to present further prior art that, due to the short appeal brief deadline in interim injunction proceedings, was unknown to it at the time of filing its appeal brief and therefore could not have been introduced earlier.
Hand Held Products opposed the application and requested its rejection. It argued that, in accordance with the principles of acceleration and procedural efficiency, as well as the front-loaded nature of proceedings, the number of written submissions must remain limited unless the applicant provides compelling reasons under Rule 36 for the admission of further submissions. Hand Held Products contended that the reference to paragraph [0063] merely served to underscore the interpretation made by the Court of First Instance regarding a specific aspect of feature 1.8 of claim 1, and that the issue of augmented reality had already been addressed in Hand Held Products' complaint filed on February 21, 2024.
& Analysis: The Court of Appeal considered the parties' submissions regarding the application under Rule 36. Following a procedural order of October 24, 2024, Hand Held Products submitted its written observations on October 28, 2024. The text of the order is truncated and does not contain the full reasoning or the final ruling on the application.
Final Order & Ruling: The provided text is incomplete and does not include the final disposition of Scandit's application to file a reply under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Scandit AG vs Hand Held Products, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi BelgiumvsZentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, following the second interim conference in four consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants are generic pharmaceutical companies from four groups: Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva. The order addresses procedural matters including the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and rulings on the admissibility of late-filed evidence.
2seventy bio, Inc.vsJohnson & Johnson, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen-Cilag International NV, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Janssen-Cilag NV, Janssen Biologics B.V., Janssen-Cilag B.V., Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Janssen-Cilag S
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 689 383, owned by the United States of America. The Claimant, 2seventy Bio, Inc., filed an infringement action against Johnson & Johnson, various Janssen entities, and Legend Biotech entities, who filed counterclaims for revocation. The Court indicated its intention to hold a joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, for reasons of efficiency and to ensure uniform interpretation of the patent.
Scandit AGvsHand Held Products, Inc.
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on August 27, 2024, concerning a request for a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out five guiding legal principles addressing direct versus indirect patent infringement liability under the 'extended workbench' doctrine, the scope of injunctive relief for indirect infringement, limitations on validity arguments in preliminary proceedings, and temporal urgency requirements. The court found that the contested program library combined with videos and documentation did not meet the standard for direct infringement liability, as alternative programming possibilities meant completion of the patented device could not be established with certainty.
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United StatesvsNetwork System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-15) under reference UPC_B850B9DE31, Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States appeared in dispute with Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)vsHisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-27) under reference UPC_BD0C7D705A, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) appeared in dispute with Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.