4 cases · page 1 of 1
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Copenhagen partially upheld a request for penalty payments against the defendants for their delayed compliance with a court order to preserve evidence in a patent infringement matter concerning EP 4 238 202 B1. The Court found that the defendants had delayed providing login credentials for their financial system, email accounts, and a seized computer by a total of 36 days, and imposed a joint penalty of EUR 67,500.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This case concerns an application for preservation of evidence regarding European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1 before the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Copenhagen. The applicant sought release of seized CAD files to establish alleged patent infringement by the respondents' hybrid generator products (MPU 1000, 2000, and 3000). The court ordered that the CAD files be released to the applicant's representatives under confidentiality obligations, declined to impose the previously set penalty payments since the IT expert had eventually gained access to the encrypted computer, and postponed the decision on costs until the main proceedings.
HGSystem ApS, Rune Eilertsen, Infotech Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS v.Hybridgenerator ApS
The Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Copenhagen confirmed its ex parte order of August 26, 2024, granting Hybridgenerator ApS's application for the preservation of evidence and inspection of property under Article 60 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 196 of the Rules of Procedure, concerning European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1. The respondents (collectively 'rekvisiti') had sought review of the order under Article 60(6) of the UPC Agreement, primarily arguing that the patent was invalid, that the evidence did not support infringement, and that certain parties should not have been included. The court found that Hybridgenerator had presented reasonably available evidence supporting a plausible infringement claim and that the inclusion of all four companies and the individual was justified given the close intermingling of the parties.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holdings ApS
The provided judgment text contains only digital signature blocks and does not include any substantive content regarding the facts, dispute, arguments, or outcome of the case. No factual details can be extracted from the input.
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.