Executive Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of an appeal filed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V against a prior infringement judgment issued by the Local Division in favor of HL Display AB. Due to pending settlement discussions, Black Sheep withdrew its appeal with the consent of HL Display. The court formally permitted this withdrawal and addressed the associated application for reimbursement of court fees under the updated Rules of Procedure.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal granted the request to withdraw the appeal based on the consent of the opposing party (HL Display). The ruling also clarified the applicable rules for court fee reimbursement following amendments to the Rules of Procedure, ordering a 50% refund to Black Sheep.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in HL Display AB vs Black Sheep Retail Products B.V is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.vsRoche Diabetes Care GmbH
In a preliminary objection hearing, the UPC Central Division addressed arguments concerning whether a standstill agreement could prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The court ruled decisively that violating such an agreement does not equate to a lack of jurisdiction. This ruling clarifies the scope of contractual limitations on judicial proceedings within the UPC framework, emphasizing that procedural agreements cannot override the fundamental ability of the court to hear the case.
Headwater Research LLCvsMotorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd.
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses jurisdictional objections raised by Motorola entities in a patent infringement case brought by Headwater Research LLC concerning wireless mobile devices. The court dismissed these objections, affirming its jurisdiction under the UPC Agreement. Crucially, the ruling clarifies the scope of Article 33(1)(b) EPCG, limiting its application and confirming that the main infringement proceedings will proceed to trial. This decision provides important guidance on how jurisdictional rules are interpreted in complex multi-defendant cases within the UPC.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.vsPhoton Wave Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex application for cost reimbursement following preliminary objection proceedings regarding patent competence. Seoul Viosys sought compensation for costs incurred during the legal dispute over whether the Central or Local Division was competent to hear the revocation action. The Court ruled that while the application was admissible, the recoverable costs were limited because the preliminary objection lacked the technical depth of the main revocation action. Ultimately, a partial award of EUR 11,200 was granted.
Labrador Diagnostics LLCvsbioMérieux SA
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA concerning the diagnostic instrument and method covered by EP 3 756 767 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. This decision highlights the procedural implications of bifurcated UPC cases, confirming that a finding of non-infringement renders the validity question moot for the immediate action. It also sets clear parameters regarding cost allocation in unsuccessful litigation.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KGvsALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This UPC decision, delivered by the Düsseldorf Local Chamber, addressed a complex infringement case concerning milk frothing technology. While the claimant sought an injunction and damages for patent infringement (EP 3 398 487 B1), the court ultimately dismissed the main claim. Crucially, the judgment provided important guidance on remedies, specifically clarifying that advertising materials are exempt from mandatory destruction under Art. 64(2)(e) UPC Agreement because they do not constitute 'relevant materials' used in production.
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.