Executive Summary
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Audi AG's request to expedite the proceedings. Audi argued that delays were causing increasing legal costs and sought to shorten deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The court found that the request lacked sufficient specificity and substantiation, upholding procedural norms and protecting the interests of the respondent, NST.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal denied the request for expedition because it was deemed too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. The court emphasized that shortening time periods must be justified based on specific interests, proportionality, fairness, and equity, especially considering the timing of the appeal filing.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Audi AG vs Network System Technologies LLC. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Promosome LLCvsPfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer AB (and associated BioNTech entities)
Promosome LLC initiated an infringement action against Pfizer and its affiliates concerning various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants protected by EP 2 401 365. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts related to certain pre-June 2023 sales, citing the principle of non-retroactivity in international law. The Court acknowledged its subject matter competence but deferred the conclusive decision on the jurisdictional challenge to the main proceedings, allowing the case to proceed.
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request for simultaneous interpretation in a complex infringement case involving Fujifilm and Kodak. The Mannheim Local Division ruled that while ensuring fair trial rights necessitates allowing the Claimant to use an interpreter, it firmly rejected the request for the Court to fund these services. The court clarified that since Japanese is not an official language of the division, the financial burden rests solely with the party requesting the interpretation.
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbHvsBecton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH sought an extension of deadlines related to its infringement claim against Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH concerning EP 2 133 289. The court partially granted the request, setting a new deadline for various pleadings until September 5, 2025. This decision highlights the UPC's strict procedural adherence, where extensions must be calculated carefully to avoid conflicts with subsequent hearing dates and rules regarding weekend extensions.
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.
Centripetal LimitedvsKeysight Technologies, Inc.
In a procedural order, the Local Division in Mannheim rejected Keysight Technologies' request to stay infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 821 580. The defendant sought a stay based on a preliminary EPO opinion suggesting the patent suffered from added matter. However, the UPC court determined that the case was ripe for hearing and that waiting would cause undue delay, preferring to proceed with its own decision-making process.
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.