Executive Summary
This UPC decision addressed a preliminary objection raised by the defendant against a second counterclaim for revocation. The Court held that Art. 33 (2) UPCA requires an expansive interpretation of lis pendens, applying not only across different divisions but also within the same division. As the patent's validity was already subject to prior proceedings in the same court, the second counterclaim was rejected as inadmissible.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court ruled that Art. 33 (2) UPCA must be interpreted broadly to cover situations where the same action on the same patent is brought twice before the same division, establishing a principle of lis pendens. Consequently, the second counterclaim for revocation was deemed inadmissible because the validity of EP 3 780 758 was already subject to prior proceedings.
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 Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson vs Motorola Mobility LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
QUALCOMM INCORPORATEDvsEuropean Patent Office (EPO)
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application seeking the reimbursement of court fees related to a previous action against the European Patent Office (EPO). The case, which involved challenging an EPO decision, was closed after the EPO rectified its initial ruling. However, the UPC Court dismissed Qualcomm's request for fee reimbursement. The Court ruled that because the original order on this matter was issued by a single judge and is appealable, the current application could not overturn or modify that prior procedural decision.
Ona Patents SLvsApple Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a request for the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of both an infringement action and associated counterclaims. The Court analyzed the procedural status of the case—specifically that regular pleadings had been exchanged, but the written procedure was not formally closed. Applying relevant Rules of Procedure (R. 370.9(b)(ii)), the Court granted a partial reimbursement of 40% of the fees to the Defendants.
La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd.vsAthena Pharmaceutiques SAS; Substipharm
In this UPC CFI decision concerning a revocation action, the court addressed the defendants' request for security for costs against the claimant. Despite the claimant asserting SME status and arguing that such an order would restrict access to justice, the Court found the defendant's arguments regarding the claimant's financial vulnerability credible. Consequently, the court ordered the claimant to provide €75,000 in security within six weeks, setting a specific amount while rejecting the defendants' demands for higher sums or faster deadlines.
NJOY Netherlands B.V.vsJuul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application to withdraw an appeal in a patent revocation case involving vaping technology. The court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal after NJOY consented, closing the appellate proceedings. Despite allowing the withdrawal, the court applied standard cost rules, ruling that Juul Labs, as the appellant who withdrew, was ultimately unsuccessful and must cover NJOY's legal costs for the appeal.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbHvsVantiva SA
In a procedural ruling before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC, Atlas Global Technologies GmbH withdrew its infringement claim against Vantiva SA and its affiliates. Simultaneously, the defendants successfully withdrew their counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent EP 3 353 901. The court accepted both withdrawals, declaring the proceedings terminated. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can lead to a swift conclusion in complex UPC litigation, focusing on mutual consent rather than substantive merits.
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.