Short Summary
In this legal proceeding before Helsinki Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-08) under reference UPC_4905557A3F, AIM SPORT DEVELOPMENT AG, Luzern, Switzerland appeared in dispute with TGI SPORT FRANCE SASU (previously SUPPONOR SASU), Biot, Fran, TGI SPORT ITALIA S.R.L. (previously SUPPONOR ITALIA SRL), Bu concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Detailed Summary
ORDER
of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 8 July 2026
concerning court fees for lodging a Statement of appeal against an order disposing an
application for provisional measures
APPELLANT (CLAIMANT AND COUNTERDEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE):
AIM SPORT DEVELOPMENT AG, Luzern, Switzerland
(hereinafter referred to as ‘AIM’)
represented by attorneys at law Ari Laakkonen and other representatives of the law firm Powell Gilbert
(Europe) LLP, Dublin, Ireland as well as David Por of the law firm Clifford Chance Europe LLP, Paris,
France
RESPONDENTS (DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE):
1. TGI SPORT SUOMI OY (previously SUPPONOR OY), Espoo, Finland
2. TGI SPORT VIRTUAL LIMITED (previously SUPPONOR LIMITED), London, United Kingdom
3. TGI SPORT FRANCE SASU (previously SUPPONOR SASU), Biot, France
4. TGI SPORT ITALIA S.R.L. (previously SUPPONOR ITALIA SRL), Busto Arsizio, Italy
5. TGI SPORT MARKETING ESPAÑA, S.L. (previously SUPPONOR ESPAÑA SL), Barcelona, Spain
6. TGI SPORT VIRTUAL UK LIMITED (previously SUPPONOR U.K. LTD), London, United Kingdom
(hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘TGI’)
all represented by attorneys at law Dr. Henrik Lehment of the law firm Hogan Lovells International
LLP, Düsseldorf, Germany, Dr. Matthias Sonntag of the law firm Gleiss Lutz, Düsseldorf, Germany and
other representatives authorised to practice before the Unified Patent Court
PATENT IN SUIT:
EP 3 295 663
LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:
English
PANEL AND DECIDING JUDGES:
Panel 2
Patricia Rombach, judge-rapporteur and legally qualified judge
UPC Court of Appeal:
UPC-CoA-108/2026
IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE:
Date: 29 April 2026, Helsinki Local Division,
Action number attributed by the Court of First Instance:
ACT_551054/2023 (provisional measures proceedings, R. 360 RoP)
OF THE FACTS AND THE REQUESTS:
1. AIM filed an infringement action (UPC-CFI-214/2023) together with an application for
provisional measures (hereinafter referred to as ‘PI’, ACT_551054/2023) against TGI. The
Helsinki Local Division upheld TGI´s preliminary objection and dismissed both the infringement
action and the PI application for lack of competence and jurisdiction.
2. On 12 November 2024 (UPC-CoA-489/2023 and UPC-CoA-500/2023) the Court of Appeal set
aside the orders of the Helsinki Local Division and referred the action and the application for
provisional measures back to the Helsinki Local Division. The PI proceedings were
subsequently discontinued. The Helsinki Local Division deferred any decision on costs pending
the outcome of the infringement action.
3. On 29 April 2026, the Helsinki Local Division dismissed the infringement action and, in the
impugned order disposed of the PI application (ACT_551054/2023). The Court set the value of
the preliminary injunction proceedings at EUR 9,9 million and ordered that the reasonable and
proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred before the Court of First Instance by TGI,
up to the ceiling of EUR 800,000, be borne by AIM.
4. On 29 June 2026, AIM filed an appeal against the impugned order as well as against the decision
dismissing the infringement action.
PARTY´S SUBMISSIONS
5. AIM argues that none of the appeal fees provided in Tables IV and V of the UPC Table of Court
Fees (26 February 2026) are applicable because it is brought under R. 220.1(a) RoP and
concerns only the allocation of costs in preliminary injunction proceedings that had become
devoid of purpose. According to AIM, the appeal is not an appeal under R. 220.1(c) RoP relating
to an application for provisional measures and, therefore, no appeal fee should be payable.
Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure, AIM has paid the fee applicable to an appeal under
R. 220.1(c) RoP. The amount paid totals EUR 20,400, consisting of a fixed fe
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Helsinki Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in AIM SPORT DEVELOPMENT AG, Luzern, Switzerland vs TGI SPORT FRANCE SASU (previously SUPPONOR SASU), Biot, Fran, TGI SPORT ITALIA S.R.L. (previously SUPPONOR ITALIA SRL), Bu is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Nokia Technology GmbHvsRespondent
This case concerns a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH against European Patent EP 2 044 709 B1 owned by Mala Technologies Ltd. The dispute centered on a preliminary objection raised by Nokia, which sought to reject Mala Technologies' Application to amend the patent as inadmissible, arguing that the Defendant failed to initiate the correct workflow in the Case Management System in a timely manner. The Court denied Nokia's request, holding that the Application to amend was filed within the two-month time limit under Rule 49(1),(2) RoP and that the Rules of Procedure do not unambiguously require a separate workflow for such applications.
***vsEssetre Holding spa
A revocation action was filed against Essetre Holding s.p.a. concerning European Patent No. EP 2 875 923 B1, which relates to a machine for machining walls, particularly walls made of wood or multilayer walls. The claimant argued that the subject-matter of claim 1 lacked novelty over a German patent document (DE 34 12 441 C2) and a YouTube video, and lacked inventive step over the prior art in combination with common general knowledge or additional cited references. The Court addressed the interpretation of the term 'a working surface' in the independent claim, affirming that it should be interpreted as meaning 'one working surface' based on its ordinary meaning and the context of the patent's description and drawings.
Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
This order concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 between Hurom Co., Ltd. as Claimant and NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. as Defendant. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant by brief of 10 April 2026. The Defendant raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)vsShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna Netherlands B.V. et. al
This is a Rule 105.5 procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur following an interim conference in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The claimant, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, asserts European Patent EP2590626 B1 against fifteen Moderna entities across multiple European jurisdictions. The interim conference was held online on 11 June 2026 to streamline and prepare the proceedings for the upcoming oral hearing, addressing topics suggested by both the Court and the parties.
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.