Recent cases > Intervention
Showing
Apple Intervenes in Confidentiality Appeals: UPC Court of Appeal Allows Intervention in Ericsson and Sun Patent Trust Cases
Apple (Intervener) in Ericsson v. AsusTek and Apple (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo UPC_CoA_631/2025[1], UPC_CoA_632/2025[2], UPC_CoA_755/2025[3], and UPC_CoA_757/2025[4] – Orders of 23 September 2025 In a cluster of orders issued on...
Intervention by patent pool administrator permitted
NEC Corporation v TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. & Others (UPC_CFI_153/2024) Order dated 2 October 2024 (ORD_46842/2024)[1] NEC Corporation (“NEC”) sued seven companies within the TCL group (“TCL”) for infrin...
UPC allows intervention by Licensee
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH (UPC_CFI_363/2023) Order of 22 April 2024 (ORD_5343/2024)[1] Seoul Viosys sued expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH for infringement of EP3926698 at the Düsseldorf Loc...
Joining a party
Seoul Viosys., Ltd v Laser Components SAS (UPC_CFI_440/2023) Order dated 12 February 2024 (ORD_3311/2024) In this infringement case before the Paris Local Division the defendant, Laser Components SAS, sought to add a third party, Photon Wave Co. L...
Requirements for an intervention
In the matter of an appeal by Ocado Innovation Limited and applications to intervene by (1) Mathys & Squire LLP and (2) Bristows (Ireland ) LLP Order of Court of Appeal dated 10 January 2024 By Order of 17 October 2023, the Nordic Baltic region...
C-KORE v Novawell: Paris local division grants evidence preservation order in subsea testing apparatus dispute
Order of 14 November 2023 (ORD_587064/2023) This was another successful application for preserving evidence, following those in the Oerlikon v Himson, Oerlikon v Bhagat Group, Jozef Frans Nelissen v OrthoApnea S.L. and Progress Maschinen & Automa...