STOCKHOLM REGIONAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Peter Kenamets, Fredrik Lüning and Linnéa Hedström, Lind Edlund Kenamets Intellectual Property AB
• Ocado v Autostore et al – EP3653540 (ACT_459791/2023, UPC_CFI_11/2023). Set - tled before all defendants were served with the statement of claim; • Edwards v Meril et al – EP3769722 (ACT_582093/2023, UPC_CFI_380/2023). Oral hearing held on 16 January 2025. No decision issued yet; • Abbott v Dexcom et al – EP3977921 (ACT_588346/2023, UPC_CFI_430/2023). Oral hearing held on 19 December 2024. Case settled following the hearing; • Texport v Sioen – EP2186428 (ACT_953/2024, UPC_CFI_9/2024). Oral hearing held on 11 February 2025. No decision issued yet; • Viking Arm v Stanley Black & Decker et al – EP3953541 (ACT_19392/2024, UPC_ CFI_172/2024). Oral hearing held on 25 March 2025. Parties seem to have filed appli - cations to withdraw their respective actions after the hearing; and • Playtech Software v Games Global et al – EP3827889 (ACT_53528/2024, UPC_ CFI_558/2024). A total of thirteen counterclaims for revocation have been commenced before the NBRD, as fol - lows: • Sormedica v Edwards – EP2628464 (CC_587618/2023); • Smis v Edwards – EP2628464 (CC_587616/2023); • Meril v Edwards – EP2628464 (CC_587597/2023); • Meril Lifesciences v Edwards – EP2628464 (CC_587594/2023); • Stanley Black & Decker v Viking Arm – EP3953541 (CC 44381/2024, UPC_ CFI_452/2024); • Dexcom v Abbott – EP3977921 (CC 14848/2024);
• Vab-Logistik v Edwards – EP3769722 (CC_14326/2024); • Interlux v Edwards – EP3769722 (CC_14325/2024); • Sormedica v Edwards – EP3769722 (CC_14323/2024); • SMIS v Edwards – EP3769722 (CC_14320/2024); • Meril v Edwards – EP3769722 (CC_14317/2024); • Meril v Edwards – EP3769722 (CC_14226/2024); and • Playtech v Games Global – EP3827889 (CC_6080/2025, UPC_CFI_91/2025). The NBRD has also received the following appli - cation for preserving evidence pursuant to Rule 192 RoP: • Imbox Protection v Brunngård Group and Footbridge Group (ACT_51647/2024, UPC_ CFI_527/2024). The following application for a cost decision has been submitted to the NBRD: • Meril v Erik Krahbichler (ACT_63163/2024, UPC_CFI_732/2024). The following application for provisional meas - ures has been submitted pursuant to Rule 206 RoP: Fapa Vital v Valentis Baltic (ACT_63292/2024, UPC_CFI_734/2024). 2.2 Substantive Hearings The NBRD has held the following hearings. Oral Hearings – Four (with one further hearing scheduled for 18 July 2025):
125 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook