CHEMISTRY, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING — European UPC Patent Cases
4 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 4 total
Sodastream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
This UPC Court of Appeal order concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Aarke AB against a finding of infringement made by the CFI. The court permitted the withdrawal because the claimant, Sodastream Industries Ltd., did not object to the request. While Aarke was deemed the unsuccessful party and liable for costs, the proceedings were closed upon the successful withdrawal.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict criteria for granting security for costs under R.158 RoP, particularly when enforcement involves foreign jurisdictions like Israel. The court emphasized that a claimant's status as an SME or the defendant's affiliation with a financially sound group is irrelevant; only the defendant's individual financial capacity and the practical enforceability of a cost order matter. Aarke's appeal was rejected because it failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that enforcement in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 1793917), the defendant Aarke AB sought to adjourn the oral hearing, citing an outstanding appeal regarding a request for security for costs. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected this request. The court clarified that appeals related to certain orders do not automatically halt main proceedings, especially when the order in question (security for costs) does not fall under the specific exceptions of Art. 74 (3) UPCA.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In a costs-related proceeding, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf dismissed Aarke AB's request for security of costs against SodaStream Industries Ltd. The Court emphasized that ordering such security requires concrete evidence demonstrating either financial instability or a high risk that an UPC judgment would be unenforceable. The defendant failed to substantiate its claims regarding the claimant's willingness to comply with cost decisions, especially given the claimant's affiliation with the financially strong PepsiCo group.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.