Referred Decisions
5 cases | Page 1 of 1
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited and Eurep GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involves a complex dispute over provisional measures concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought to prevent infringement by Dreame International and Eurep, who marketed products through websites. The court found jurisdictional questions regarding the role of EU-based intermediaries (Eurep) in facilitating third-state infringement were too complex for it to resolve alone. Consequently, the Court referred key legal questions to the CJEU while simultaneously issuing provisional measures against certain defendants within the UPC Territory.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the mandatory procedural requirements for imposing periodic penalty payments under R. 354.4 RoP. The court ruled that such an intrusive measure must be decided by a panel, not a single judge. Consequently, the appeal was successful, leading to the setting aside of the initial order and referral back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
CENTRIPETAL LIMITED v.PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the delicate balance required when granting orders for preserving evidence and inspecting premises. The court clarified that while the standard of proof is lower in these summary proceedings than in a full infringement action, applicants must demonstrate plausibility rather than mere speculation to prevent 'fishing expeditions.' Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes that any such measures must be necessary for effective patent enforcement while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB, Vab-Logistik UAB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a stay of infringement proceedings pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings at the EPO. The court affirmed the legal basis for such a stay under Art. 33(10) UPCA, noting that it is crucial to prevent conflicting judgments between the UPC and the EPO regarding patent validity. Despite recognizing the merits of the request, the Court ultimately referred the case back to the Court of First Instance (CFI), allowing the CFI to exercise its discretion with full knowledge of the infringement proceedings' status.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.VusionGroup SA (vormals SES-imagotag SA)
This UPC Appeals Board decision clarifies the procedural rules governing cost determination in complex litigation. The court ruled that even when a party seeks to recover costs related to the appeals process itself, the application must ultimately be filed with and decided by the Court of First Instance. This ruling reinforces the structured nature of the UPC's procedure, ensuring that all final cost determinations follow the established framework (R. 150 ff. VerfO). Practitioners should note this when planning their costs recovery strategy in multi-stage UPC proceedings.
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.