Executive Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional question: whether the Unified Patent Court can hear an independent claim for damages following a successful national infringement judgment. The court affirmed that since the damage claim is rooted in patent infringement, it falls under the scope of Article 32(1)(a) EPC. This ruling provides significant clarity and predictability for patentees seeking to enforce their rights across the UPC system.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that its jurisdiction extends to independent claims for damages even after a national court has already established patent infringement and a basic obligation to pay damages. This confirms that such a claim is fundamentally 'a claim because of' (wegen) the underlying patent infringement, falling within Article 32(1)(a) EPC.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Luxembourg (LU), this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Ona Patents SLvsApple Inc.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed Ona Patents SL to withdraw its infringement action against Apple Inc., and simultaneously permitted the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation filed by the defendants. The court confirmed that since all parties had reached an agreement regarding cost allocation (each party bearing its own costs), no formal cost decision was required under the Rules of Procedure. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can streamline litigation, even when complex infringement and validity issues are involved.
ITCiCo Spain S.L.vsBayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application filed by ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking to overturn a default judgment in a revocation action against Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft. The core issue was whether the claimant provided sufficient justification for missing critical deadlines. The Court ruled that merely explaining the delay is insufficient; the applicant must prove the failure was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure, thereby reinforcing strict procedural compliance within the UPC system.
Genevant Sciences GmbHvsModerna (various entities)
In a complex case involving fifteen Moderna entities across multiple jurisdictions, the UPC addressed procedural challenges related to service and scheduling deadlines. Claimants Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma sought extensions due to the global nature of their defendants. The Court rejected the specific extension requests but issued an order setting a unified deadline for all Defendants to file their Statements of Defense, demonstrating how the UPC manages multi-jurisdictional litigation efficiently.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.vsSWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This UPC Board of Appeal decision concerns an application by Chainzone Technology to suspend the effect of a judgment against it, which had found it liable for patent infringement. The appeal was filed following a local court ruling that largely favored Swarco, the patent holder. The Board ultimately rejected Chainzone's request for suspension, citing insufficient substantiation in its legal arguments regarding the interpretation of the patent claim.
Washtower IP B.V.vsINDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. sought provisional measures against several defendants regarding the patent EP3522755B1 covering ergonomic washing machine cabinets. The court issued an order on September 11, 2025, focusing primarily on costs and interim relief. Although the application for preliminary measures was partially addressed, the ruling established a significant cost award of EUR 62,600 against Defendants 2-5.
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.