Short Summary
Procedural order from the UPC Local Division Helsinki in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3295663. AIM Sport Development AG sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to amend its Statement of Claims and under Rule 305 RoP to add a new defendant, TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited. The Court granted the application, allowing the amendments and the addition of the new defendant, while giving the existing defendants three months from the date of the order to lodge their Statement of Defence.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Helsinki, on 11 February 2025, in infringement action ACT_545571/2023 (UPC_CFI_214/2023) concerning European Patent EP3295663 owned by AIM Sport Vision AG.
BACKGROUND:
The Helsinki Local Division had initially dismissed the infringement action on 20 October 2023 based on lack of competence of the UPC, following a preliminary objection by the Defendants. The Court of Appeal set aside that decision on 12 November 2024 and referred the action back to the Helsinki Local Division. After hearing the parties, the Court ordered AIM Sport to file a Rule 263 RoP application to amend the case by 8 January 2025. The Defendants had not filed a Statement of Defence due to the pending appeal proceedings.
PARTIES:
The Applicant was AIM Sport Development AG (which had replaced AIM Sport Vision AG based on a decision of the Helsinki Local Division on 26 February 2024). The Defendants were TGI Sport Suomi Oy (previously Supponor Oy), TGI Sport Virtual Limited (previously Supponor Limited), Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, and Supponor España SL.
AIM SPORT'S APPLICATION:
On 8 January 2025, AIM Sport filed its application for leave to change claim or amend case/pleading (App_1205/2025) under Rule 263 RoP, and on 15 January 2025 filed an additional submission concerning grounds for adding a new defendant under Rule 305 RoP. AIM Sport requested four categories of changes:
1. Adding a new defendant, TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited (previously Supponor UK Ltd), based on knowledge gained after the original filing that this entity was involved in infringing acts in Germany, supported by a draft agreement provided as a confidential appendix.
2. Extending the infringement case to Spain, relying on the same patent and the same infringing acts committed jointly by members of the Supponor group. AIM Sport argued that the Supponor companies were jointly committing infringing acts and that the claims were so closely connected that hearing them together would avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments. AIM Sport noted that only a protective letter had been filed in Spain, not previous proceedings.
3. Including more recent information concerning joint actions of the Supponor group companies and adding a secondary claim that Supponor group companies are liable as intermediaries under Article 63(1) UPCA. AIM Sport explained that Supponor Oy is the R&D arm providing the SVB System and AIR System to the rest of the group, while Supponor Limited hosts the group's management.
4. Modifications to reflect recent judgments in parallel cases in the UK and Germany (April and May 2024), including expanding infringement claims to infringement by equivalence, since the German Court of Appeal had applied a narrow interpretation of the patent claim.
AIM Sport argued that all changes were based on factual circumstances occurring after the September 2023 oral hearing and consented to giving the Defendants three months to lodge their Statement of Defence after the Court decided on the changes.
SUPPONOR'S RESPONSE:
Supponor filed their response on 22 January 2025 (App_3474/2025), informing the Court of changes in company names (Supponor Oy became TGI Sport Suomi Oy, and Supponor Limited became TGI Sport Virtual Limited). Supponor opposed the application, arguing that the changes were not minor, that the new defendant should not be added, that the extension to Spain was not justified, and that the amendments would cause prejudice. They also made an auxiliary request for a cost decision.
COURT'S REASONING:
The Court applied the principles that the risk of irreconcilable and inconsistent decisions from different courts favours allowing changes, while protecting the frontloaded procedure of the UPC and the rights of defendants to defend themselves. The Court found that:
- The amendments to the case must be explained in the Rule 263 RoP application but can be detailed in an appendix.
- The Court may add a party to the case when the right of defence of defendants, including the new party, is sufficiently guaranteed.
- The changes were sufficiently explained and grounded, and the Defendants would have three months to lodge their Statement of Defence, ensuring their right of defence.
- The risk of irreconcilable decisions favoured allowing the changes.
- The Defendants' auxiliary request for a cost decision at this stage was dismissed.
COURT'S ORDER:
The Court granted leave to AIM Sport to change claim and amend case. The process in ACT_545571/2023 shall continue based on the clean Statement of Claims filed as an appendix to the AIM Sport application. The Defendants were given three months from the date of the order to lodge their Statement of Defence. AIM Sport was ordered to lodge a new Rule 305 RoP application within seven days to add TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited. The representatives of Supponor were ordered to inform the Court within seven days whether they also represent TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited. The Registry was instructed to amend the names of Defendants 1 and 2 in the CMS. The Court granted leave to appeal, noting that there exists only limited guidance from the Court of Appeal on these issues so far, but stated that the case would proceed as instructed regardless of potential appeals.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Helsinki (FI) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in AIM Sport Development AG vs Supponor Oy and Others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent EP 1 612 910 B1, which relates to a power control system for electronic circuits, alleging that Tesla's Model Y vehicles using AMD Ryzen processors infringed the patent. Tesla filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially revoked the patent in its main request but maintained it in a modified auxiliary request form, finding partial infringement and allocating costs 85% to Avago and 15% to Tesla.
Occlutech GmbHvsLepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2. The court granted the respondents' request to classify certain information as confidential but rejected their objection to allowing the applicant's managing director, Mr. Tor Peters, access to that information, finding that the applicant's interest in responding to arguments based on the confidential data outweighed the respondents' interest in restricting access.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L.vsDyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492 owned by Dyson Technology Limited before the Central Division Milan. After the parties reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, the claimant requested withdrawal of the revocation action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 12,000).
Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited and OthersvsKoninklijke Philips N.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 2 867 997, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. Philips, the patent holder, sued Belkin companies and their managing directors for offering wireless chargers on www.belkin.com that comply with the Qi standard's Extended Power Profile. The Court of Appeal partially upheld the appeals, ordering injunctive relief and corrective measures against the corporate defendants while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings, and declined to hold the individual managing directors personally liable.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonvsASUSTeK Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V. and Apple Inc. (intervener)
This case concerns appeals by Ericsson against orders of the Milan Local Division that established a confidentiality regime for the proceedings but rejected Ericsson's request for an 'External Eyes Only' (EEO) regime. The Court of Appeal partially set aside the impugned orders, establishing a new confidentiality regime specifically for information contained in three Confidential Licence Agreements, including a five-year licensing bar on the designated natural persons from each party. The Court of Appeal also set a penalty of €1,000,000 per culpable breach of the confidentiality order.
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.