Denied
at Brussels (BE) Local Division
4 denied decisions from Brussels (BE) Local Division.
Denied Decisions
4 cases | Page 1 of 1
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. v.Barco NV
Yealink filed an application seeking to rectify a previous Final Order concerning legal costs in the UPC case against Barco. Yealink argued that the original order was flawed regarding the cost award amount. However, the Local Division Brussels dismissed the rectification request, holding that the initial decision was legally sound and consistent. This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of R. 353 RoP, emphasizing that procedural corrections must be limited to clear errors rather than re-evaluations of legal reasoning.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
Barco N.V. sought provisional measures against Yealink entities regarding the European patent EP 3 732 827. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the application, finding that there was no sufficient urgency to warrant preliminary relief. While denying the injunction, the court clarified several important procedural matters, including its own territorial competence and the cumulative nature of requirements for granting provisional measures. This decision serves as a reminder to applicants that demonstrating immediate necessity is paramount in urgent UPC proceedings.
De heer v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
In this UPC case, the court addressed a claim of infringement related to Mandibular Advancement Devices (MAD). The claimant sought relief against OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV regarding patents covering these medical devices. The court ultimately dismissed both the literal and equivalent infringement claims. This decision reinforces established principles regarding patent scope interpretation under Article 69 EPC, particularly emphasizing that functional equivalence is necessary for an equivalence finding.
Unnamed individual residing in Belgium v.OrthoApnea S.L.
This UPC Local Division Brussels order addressed a procedural challenge brought by OrthoApnea S.L. against an earlier interim decision concerning claim amendments and deadlines in an infringement action related to EP 2 331 036. The court rejected the request for partial review, upholding the Judge-Rapporteur's initial ruling that allowed certain procedural adjustments while maintaining strict control over the case timeline. This highlights the UPC's rigorous approach to managing complex litigation and limiting opportunities for extensive procedural delays.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.