Vienna (AT) Local Division
5 cases · page 1 of 1
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
In this UPC case, Messerle GmbH sued Sabert Corporation Europe S.A. for infringement and simultaneously filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 705 415 B1, which covers specialized food packaging. The court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. Beyond the substantive outcome, the decision highlighted critical procedural requirements within the UPC system, particularly concerning the timely presentation of evidence and arguments.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
In this UPC case concerning food packaging (EP 3 705 415 B1), the court dismissed both the infringement action brought by Messerle GmbH and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Sabert Corporation Europe S.A. The decision highlighted critical procedural requirements under the UPC, stressing that parties must present their full factual case and evidence as early as possible to avoid challenges regarding timeliness. This ruling serves as a strong reminder to patent practitioners about the strict evidentiary standards required in front-loaded litigation.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC decision addressed an infringement claim concerning color-and-light mixing optics used in outdoor display boards. The court granted the injunction, compelling the respondent to remove the infringing products from distribution or arrange their destruction. However, the plaintiff's request for public disclosure of the ruling was rejected, emphasizing that such publication requires a strong interest that outweighs potential harm to the defendant. This case provides clear guidance on the scope of injunctive relief and the stringent requirements for court-ordered publicity in UPC proceedings.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.
This UPC decision addresses a request for public access to case files by a third party (DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.). The court analyzed the balance between the applicant's interest in obtaining documents and the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing infringement proceedings. Ultimately, the court denied the access request, emphasizing that procedural fairness and confidentiality must prevail over speculative or indirect interests.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC decision concerns an application for third-party intervention (Streithilfe) in a patent infringement case. The claimant sued the respondent over EP 2 643 717, which covers specialized optics for outdoor display boards used in LED traffic signs. A Chinese manufacturer, Chainzone Technology, sought to join the proceedings as a third party because its products were allegedly infringing. The court admitted the intervention but conditioned it on the deposit of EUR 134,000 to cover potential legal costs.
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.