Executive Summary
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 481 141, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request by Anker Innovations and associated entities to stay infringement proceedings. The defendants sought a stay pending a decision on their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich LD. The Court determined that this request must be decided after the oral hearing because the applicability of the FRAND defense depends entirely on the outcome of the main infringement and validity arguments.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court ruled that a decision regarding the request to stay the infringement proceedings cannot be made before the oral hearing. This is because determining whether the FRAND defense is decisive requires first establishing patent infringement and validity, which must occur during the main proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Powermat Technologies, Ltd. vs Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KGvsIndustria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG to withdraw its infringement claim against Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH. This withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties as part of an out-of-court settlement. Although the merits were not decided, the court issued a detailed cost allocation, refunding fees to both sides based on the timing of the withdrawals.
Centripetal LimitedvsPalo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this provisional measures case, Centripetal Limited sought a Saisie order to monitor Palo Alto Networks' network security solution for potential infringement of EP 3 281 580. Although the Court of Appeal had previously allowed an ex-parte hearing and referred the matter back, the CFI ultimately revoked the Saisie order and rejected the application for preserving evidence. The court emphasized its right to review provisional measures based on new facts, even after a referral from the CoA.
QUANTIFICARE S.A.vsCanfield Scientific, Inc., Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l., ESTHETEC SAS
In UPC case UPC_CFI_559/2024, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued a procedural order regarding EP 3 156 843 B1. The court utilized its discretion to streamline the litigation process by deciding early that it would handle both the infringement claim brought by QUANTIFICARE S.A. and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Canfield Scientific and others simultaneously. This decision aims to ensure a unified legal interpretation of the patent claims while maximizing procedural efficiency.
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.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a rehearing filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals against Amgen, challenging an earlier ruling. The court clarified the extremely narrow scope of Art. 81(1) UPCA, emphasizing that a rehearing is not a regular appeal mechanism. The court ruled that procedural errors must be 'fundamental'—so severe they are intolerable to the legal system and would have prevented the decision from being reached—and rejected Alexion’s application.
Ona Patents SLvsGoogle Ireland Limited
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's attempt to introduce new claims related to indirect patent infringement outside of the established case management framework. The Court strictly enforced procedural rules, finding that these new requests constituted an impermissible amendment to the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance for patentees to adhere rigorously to the UPC's procedural timetable and filing requirements when seeking expanded relief.
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.