27 September 2024
Local Division Düsseldorf, Ortovox vs Mammut
Powers of the court
UPC_CFI_16/2024 UPC
Facts:
Mammut requests in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal of 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024, Ord. 44387/2024) that parties can file additional submissions in the main case (RoP 9). In the decision of 25 September, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the confirmation of the LD of an ex-parte preliminary injunction against Mammut.
Decision by JR: Rejection
“The decision of the Court of Appeal does not give cause for a further written exchange in the main proceedings”
27 September 2024
Court of Appeal, Volkswagen vs Network Systems
Security for costs of a party
UPC_CoA_218/2024
UPC_CoA_220/2024
UPC_CoA_222/2024
Facts:
The Court of Appeal had ordered in earlier decision Network Systems to provide security (RoP158.4). Volkswagen asks for rectification of this Order and to add that if no security is provided the court may give a decision by default (RoP 353 and 355).
Decision:
1. No correction as Order ex 158.4 does not require such addition and Volkswagen did not ask for it.
2. Court of Appeal gives new Order in which it notifies Network Systems that if it fails to provide security a default judgment may be entered.
27 September 2024
Court of Appeal, Audi vs Network Systems
UPC_CoA_218/2024
UPC_CoA_220/2024
UPC_CoA_222/2024
Same decision as re Volkswagen hereabove.
30 September 2024
Central Division Paris, Microsoft vs Suinno
Security for costs of a party
UPC_CFI_164/2024
CD refers to criteria in the Court of Appeal Order of 17 September 2024
(UPC.CoA.221/2024) and of 26 August 2024 (UPC.CoA.328/2024):
1. party filing the request has the burden of proof;
2. thereafter it is up to the other party (who knows its own financial situation) to argue in a substantiated manner why security is not necessary;
3. security for costs is justified if there is a legitimate real concern that costs may not or be only in an unduly burdensome way recoverable;
♦ Suinno was formed 7 months earlier for enforcing this patent and has no other business no physical assets and not even own office space.
♦ Amount asked was the maximum recoverable costs (600.000) in view of the value of the litigation
♦ CD awards 300.000.
30 September 2024
Court of Appeal, Xiaomi c.s. vs Panasonic
Application for a discretionary review – extension of time-limit
UPC_CoA_543/2024
UPC_CoA_544/2024
UPC_CoA_545/2024
Xiaomi requests LD Mannheim to extend the period for its RoP 29(d) submission to two months after the final decision with respect to a secrecy request (Art. 262A) of Panasonic with respect to Panasonic’s Rule 29(c) submission.
♦ The JR does not grant the request in full
♦ Xiaomi request review (RoP 333) of the panel
♦Panel agrees with JR refuses leave for appeal
♦ Xiaomi asks Court of Appeal:
1. To allow the appeal
2. To correct the decision of LD Mannheim
Argument:
LD Munich and LD Hamburg allow full two months period. LD’s should deal with requests for extension in the same way.
Decision:
With which period a LD wants to extend a period in a specific case belongs to the discretion of the court.
No urgent necessity in this stadium of the proceedings in first instance to grant the appeal for other reasons.
1 October 2024
Central Division Milan, Insulet vs Eoflow
Request for intervention
UPC_CFI_380/2024
Insulet had already filed P.I. proceedings against Eoflow’s Italian distributor Menarini in the LD Milan.
Eoflow wanted to intervene in the proceedings before the LD Milan. This was refused by the LD Milan.
Now Menarini wants to intervene in the P.I. proceedings in the CD.
The CD refuses intervention:
1. Allowing intervention in P.I. proceedings only in exceptional cases because intervenor can always later defend its rights in the main proceedings.
2. Intervention could also have been filed earlier.
3. Menarini can defend its rights in the pending P.I. proceedings in the LD.
2 October 2024
Local Division Munich, NEC vs TCL
Application to intervene
UPC_CFI_153/2024
Administrator of a patent pool to which the disputed patent belongs request to intervene.
Decision:
1. Court accepts the request as the Administrator has a direct interest in the outcome of the proceedings (RoP 313(1)) (See Court of Appeal 10 January 2024 CoA 404/2023).
2. There is no risk that information exchanged between administrator and defendant under an NDA with respect to license negotiations becomes known to claimant because the NDA does not allow the Administrator to divulge such info.
3. No abuse of process and no violation of 101(1)TFEU.
4. Intervenor has the full right to all information exchanged during the proceedings except as far as protected by RoP 262A (to which only one person of the Administrator will have access).
2 October 2024
Local Division Munich, Headwater vs Samsung
Security for costs of a party
Headwater a US company is ordered to provide security for € 100.000 by payment into the bank account of the UPC.
LD applies the legal standard set by the Court of Appeal.
– All comments above are Prof. Hoyng‘s personal opinions –