MECHANICAL ENGINEERING — European UPC Patent Cases
9 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 9 total
AWM s.r.l. v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This UPC CFI decision addresses a request for cost determination, which was complicated by the automatic suspensive effect of an appeal lodged against the underlying revocation counterclaim. The court clarified that Article 74(2) UPCA's mandatory suspensive effect extends to all parts of the decision, including those concerning legal costs. Consequently, rather than dismissing the application as untimely, the Court opted to stay the cost proceedings until the UPC Court of Appeal resolves the main dispute.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Lindal Dispenser GmbH against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited concerning patent EP 3 655 346. Both parties agreed to close the proceedings, and the court granted the request for reimbursement of court fees. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework when parties reach a mutual agreement to terminate litigation.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed Windhager's request to stay the execution of a judgment issued by the Local Division in an infringement case against bellissa HAAS GmbH. Although Windhager had raised revocation defenses, the court found insufficient grounds to grant the stay. The ruling reinforces the high threshold required for obtaining a stay of execution under UPC rules, emphasizing that mere allegations of error are not enough.
WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna v.Vilpe Oy
This UPC decision is an interim order from the Central Division in a revocation action concerning EP 2 649 380. The court confirmed the oral hearing date for December 3, 2025, and addressed several procedural matters. Notably, the claimant was ordered to provide translations of specific prior art documents (D2 and D4), while the defendant was allowed to re-order its auxiliary requests.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC Local Division case concerned a procedural application by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG seeking to correct an alleged material error in a prior cost award decision. Oerlikon argued that the initial ruling undervalued their recoverable costs, specifically citing a phrase suggesting an additional €20,000 for the main action. The Court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the entire motivational reasoning of the original judgment consistently supported the final awarded sum of €80,000. This decision reinforces the principle that the full context and motivation of a court order must be considered when assessing clerical errors under ROP 353.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 037 175, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim granted Polidoro S.p.a. an extension of one week to file its reply brief and defense against Bekaert's counterclaim for revocation. The court acknowledged that delays in providing unredacted documents necessitated this procedural adjustment. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to ensuring fair procedure, even when dealing with complex litigation involving both infringement claims and revocation counterclaims.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.ehemalige Patentinhaber
This UPC appellate decision addresses a complex issue regarding cost allocation in patent litigation where one party initiates an invalidity action and the other subsequently waives their rights to the patent. The court ruled that equitable considerations can override strict procedural requirements concerning the timing of a waiver and revocation request under Art. 105a EPC. This provides significant relief for patentees who may have delayed formalizing their withdrawal due to complex legal circumstances.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding sensitive documents submitted during an infringement action. The UPC ruled that certain redacted commercial data was protected as confidential information, granting access only to specific parties of the respondent's team. Conversely, a settlement agreement document was excluded from evidence entirely. This decision highlights the court's nuanced approach to balancing trade secret protection with procedural fairness in complex patent litigation.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This procedural order from the UPC Court of First Instance addresses the balance between public transparency and the protection of confidential business information during an infringement case. The court confirmed that while proceedings are generally public, it retains the power to limit access during the interim conference if sensitive data is discussed. This decision provides clear guidance on how parties can manage their proprietary information within the UPC framework.
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.