Executive Summary
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha initiated infringement proceedings against General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. and related entities concerning EP 3 686 683 B1, which included a counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a Procedural Order confirming that both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim would be heard jointly. This decision streamlines the litigation process by ensuring a unified interpretation of the patent's scope across both validity and infringement claims.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Panel exercised its discretion under R. 37.2 RoP to decide early on the procedural question of whether the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation should be heard together (bifurcation issue). The court found that a joint hearing was appropriate for efficiency, ensuring both validity and infringement are decided based on a uniform interpretation by the same panel.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Volkswagen AGvsNetwork System Technologies LLC
In a decision concerning security for legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Munich rejected the request by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide collateral against potential future cost orders. NST argued that its small size and US domicile made enforcement of judgments difficult. The Court countered this by stating that general concerns about foreign judgment enforcement were unfounded and found no evidence of NST's actual insolvency risk, thereby upholding the Claimant's right to access justice.
Dolby International ABvsASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
In a procedural ruling in Düsseldorf, the UPC court allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Dolby International AB withdrew its infringement lawsuit against ASUS and related entities, while the defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 490 258 B1. The decision confirmed the termination of all proceedings but also addressed the allocation of costs, granting partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides based on mutual agreement.
Hand Held Products, Inc.vsScandit AG
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich allowed Hand Held Products, Inc. and Scandit AG to mutually withdraw their infringement claim and counterclaim concerning EP 3 866 051. The court formally terminated the proceedings based on this agreement. Crucially, the decision also addressed procedural fairness by ordering a partial refund of court fees for the defendant, setting an example for how timing issues affect financial outcomes in UPC litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision from the Munich Local Division addresses an applicant's request for access to case files related to a patent infringement and revocation proceedings involving EP 1 770 912 B1. The court found that the applicant had a legitimate interest in reviewing the historical legal and technical arguments, particularly since the main litigation was already concluded. Access was granted to all relevant documents from the associated procedures (infringement, counterclaim for invalidity, and amendment application), with necessary redactions applied.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.vsChint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Hamburg Local Division addressed a request by multiple defendants to compel the Chinese claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., to provide security for costs. The Court rejected the motion, emphasizing that nationality or domicile alone cannot justify such an order. The ruling reinforces the principle that parties must present concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties rather than relying on general assumptions about foreign judgment recognition.
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.