Executive Summary
This UPC case involved Avago seeking provisional measures to halt Realtek's US litigation and the enforcement of German injunctions, arguing that these actions violated fundamental European justice rights. The court initially considered the request but later issued a correction to its order. Crucially, the final ruling allowed the US-based legal proceedings to continue regarding claims other than those related to the alleged license breach, keeping the matter pending.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The initial application sought to prevent the respondent from pursuing related lawsuits (in the US) and enforcing injunctions obtained in Germany, citing violations of general European justice guarantees. The subsequent correction clarified details regarding the licensing agreement but allowed the US proceedings to continue on non-infringement claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited vs Realtek Semiconductor Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
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.
Network System Technologies LLC.vsVolkswagen AG
In a procedural matter concerning an appeal, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings and shorten deadlines. Volkswagen argued that delays were causing increased legal costs related to security for costs. The court ruled that the request lacked sufficient substantiation and specificity, emphasizing adherence to established procedural timelines and principles of proportionality.
STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.vsOTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
In a significant decision regarding claim construction, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected an application for provisional measures concerning an electropolishing medium. The dispute hinged on whether a specific emulsion met the patent's requirement for a 'non-conductive fluid.' The court ruled that by analyzing the surrounding liquid as a whole, the conductivity exceeded the claimed limit, thus finding no infringement. This case underscores the critical importance of precise claim interpretation when dealing with complex chemical formulations like emulsions in UPC litigation.
Valeo Systèmes d’EssuyagesvsRobert Bosch Doo Bograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This UPC procedural order addressed a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction in an infringement case involving Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyages against various Robert Bosch entities. The court rejected the argument that the Central Division had universal competence due to cross-border infringements and instead applied Article 33(1)(b) of the UPC Agreement, transferring the case to the local division of Düsseldorf. This decision highlights the strict application of jurisdictional rules when defendants are domiciled within contracting states.
Brita SEvsAQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
In this procedural case, the UPC Local Division allowed Brita SE to withdraw its counterclaim for revocation against EP 2 387 547. Although a decision on the revocation claim had previously been rendered by the Panel, the court ruled that withdrawal was permissible because no final judgment existed and the appeal period remained open. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust their litigation strategy even after initial rulings.
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.