Executive Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural requirements surrounding appeals in revocation actions. It clarifies that a separate court fee is due for an appeal against the main revocation action and any counterclaim for revocation, regardless of how the CFI combines its decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal fees to both parties following the mutual withdrawal of the underlying actions, setting important precedents on procedural costs.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal confirmed that a court fee is required for appeals against both the main revocation action and any associated counterclaims for revocation, even if the Court of First Instance combined the decisions into a single document. The Court also granted partial reimbursement of appeal fees based on specific procedural rules (R. 370.9(b) RoP).
Practitioner Note
This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Luxembourg (LU), this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.vsAmgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company; Amgen N.V.; Amgen GmbH; Amgen AB; Amgen S.A.S.; Amgen s.r.l.; Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda.; Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding its application for provisional measures against Amgen entities. The appeal sought an expedited hearing process under UPC Rules of Procedure. However, the Court of Appeal ultimately rejected the request for expedition, finding that Alexion's arguments were insufficient to outweigh the respondents' interests in maintaining standard procedural timelines. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain accelerated proceedings within the Unified Patent Court framework.
TCL EUROPE SASvsCorning Incorporated
In a procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed applications concerning the revocation of EP 3 296 274. The Claimant sought to introduce new arguments and reports late in the proceedings, while the Defendant requested an extension for its Defence. After discussions with both parties, the Court agreed to admit the new pleadings and grant a two-week extension. This decision underscores the importance of party cooperation in managing procedural timelines within the UPC framework.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonvsASUSTEK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the protection of confidential information in complex SEP litigation involving Ericsson and ASUS. The court meticulously crafted a confidentiality regime for sensitive license agreements, balancing the need to protect trade secrets against the parties' fundamental rights to a fair trial. A key innovation was the imposition of a five-year non-negotiation bar on party employees who gain access to these confidential licensing details, providing robust protection while maintaining procedural fairness.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbHvsSTEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed an application for inspection and evidence preservation concerning EP 2 983 864 B1. The court granted the claimant access to the unredacted expert report following the on-site investigation at the respondent's trade show booth. However, this order is conditional: the claimant must file a main infringement action against STEROS within a strict deadline, otherwise, the preservation measures will lapse.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.vsBelkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the patent and ordered Belkin to recall, remove, and destroy infringing products. Crucially, the ruling provided significant legal guidance on interpreting 'offering' in commercial contexts and defined the specific conditions under which company directors can be held liable for patent infringement.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.