UPC CoA 63/2026
May 4, 2026·EP2437696 · SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING POSITION
- Case details
- StatusInterim PhaseActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Claimants
- Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc.Operating co.
Representatives- Wim Maas-Taylor Wessing
- Diptanil Debbarma-Taylor Wessing
- Faziel Abdul-Taylor Wessing
Respondents- Koninklijke Philips N.V.Operating co.
- Philips RS North America LLCOperating co.
- Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KGOperating co.
Representatives- Michael Adrianus Josephus Ras-Philips International B.V.
- Hendrik Albert Pastink-Philips International B.V.
- Arie Jan Willem Tol-Philips International B.V.
- Ceren Okat-Philips International B.V.
- Roeland Grijpink-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringAudio-visual technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Jul 22, 2026
- EPO Opposition
- isarpatent - Patent- und Rechtsanwälte Behnisch Barth Charles Hassa Peckmann und Partner mbBWithdrawn2019-12-30
- Philips International B.V.Admissible2020-01-03
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Klaus Grabinski | Locked |
| Judge Paolo Catallozzi | Locked |
| Judge Peter Blok | Locked |
| Judge Christoph Schober | Locked |
| Judge Giorgio Checcacci | Locked |
At the UPC: Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. (5 cases)·Philips Group (46 cases)
This dispute contains 4 other proceedings
UPC CoA 64/2026·UPC CFI 103/2025·UPC CFI 43/2025·UPC APP 32667/2025
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2026
- 2026-07-22AppealPublic
Summary: In the appeal against the Hague Local Division's decision of 3 March 2026 dismissing the infringement action and revoking EP 2 437 696, the Court of Appeal judge-rapporteur declined to decide at this stage whether the eleven additional auxiliary requests filed with the statement of grounds were validly introduced under Art. 73(4) UPCA and R. 222.2 RoP, reserving that question for a later stage of the appeal. The respondents' alternative request to have their deadline for a statement of response and cross-appeal fixed at three months from a future admissibility decision was rejected, since the content of the requests is already known to them.
Show the legal issues (4)
- admissibility on appeal of auxiliary requests filed for the first time with the statement of grounds
- Art. 73(4) UPCA and R. 222.2 RoP
- whether admissibility should be determined separately in advance of the statement of response
- extension of the deadline for a statement of response and cross-appeal
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Summons to oral hearing | 2026-10-14 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-10-14 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-12 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-12 | Not public |
| Document | 2026-10-12 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-12 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-12 | Not public |
| Document | 2026-10-12 | Not public |
| Interim procedure opened | 2026-10-07 | Not public |
| Written procedure closed | 2026-10-07 | Not public |