Executive Summary
This UPC case involved an application to preserve evidence concerning the product EXPRO HUB. Although the Applicant ultimately withdrew its request for preservation measures, the Court made significant rulings regarding costs and confidentiality. The court confirmed that legal cost ceilings apply jointly across multiple defendants in such proceedings. Crucially, it also imposed strict restrictions on the use of confidential information shared by the Defendants, setting a precedent for protecting trade secrets even when initial applications fail.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court established that when an application against multiple defendants is dismissed or withdrawn, the ceiling for recoverable representation costs applies as a joint cap for all parties. Furthermore, despite the early withdrawal of the evidence preservation request, the Court found it reasonable and proportionate to award legal costs to the Defendants due to the potential risk of confidential information disclosure.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Nordic Baltic Regional Division, 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
CENTRIPETAL LIMITEDvsPALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the delicate balance required when granting orders for preserving evidence and inspecting premises. The court clarified that while the standard of proof is lower in these summary proceedings than in a full infringement action, applicants must demonstrate plausibility rather than mere speculation to prevent 'fishing expeditions.' Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes that any such measures must be necessary for effective patent enforcement while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.
Centripetal LimitedvsPalo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order addressed a penalty application filed by Centripetal Limited against Palo Alto Networks following an attempted inspection (saisie) under UPC authority. The Claimant sought penalties because the Defendant allegedly refused to grant access to monitor its network security systems. However, the Court found that the scope of the original inspection order was limited strictly to what was physically present at the premises. Since the requested technical setup and documentation were not available in the sales office, the Defendant's non-compliance could not constitute a breach, leading to the rejection of the penalty request.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 552 399. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an opt-out had not been validly withdrawn, thereby limiting the Court's jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the formal requirements of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. This ruling confirms that proper registration and adherence to procedural rules are sufficient for withdrawal, even without explicit proof of representation authority.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.vsRoche Diabetes Care GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Roche Diabetes Care GmbH and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. addressed a request for an extension of time to file a rejoinder in revocation proceedings. The Court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while flexibility is key in UPC procedure, extensions must be based on objective impossibility or extreme difficulty. This ruling reinforces the strict standard required for procedural relief, particularly when parties introduce new evidence.
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co, Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Vivo to stay the ongoing infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance (CFI). Vivo argued that an unprecedented jurisdictional question regarding active FRAND rate determination needed clarification before proceeding. The Court ultimately rejected this request, holding that VIVO did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances required under R. 21.2 RoP. This ruling reinforces the principle that main proceedings generally must continue unless truly extraordinary factors are present.
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.