Short Summary
Imbox Protection A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 276 862, filed an application to preserve evidence and inspect property against Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB regarding their EXPRO HUB product. After the Defendants submitted detailed objections demonstrating non-infringement, the Applicant withdrew the application. The Court granted the Defendants' requests for confidentiality protection over Exhibits 17-19 and awarded each Defendant SEK 225,000 in legal costs and expenses, applying a joint ceiling of EUR 38,000 for representation costs.
Detailed Summary
Imbox Protection A/S, the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 276 862, filed an application on 16 September 2024 to preserve evidence (saisie) and inspect property at the premises of Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB in Borås, Sweden. The application sought inspection of the EXPRO HUB product, inventory lists, IT systems, financial information, and email correspondence, and was filed without prior contact with the Defendants. The Applicant estimated the value of the case at under EUR 250,000 and requested that the order be issued without hearing the Defendants.
The Court informed the Applicant of its intention to use its discretion under Rule 194.1 RoP to inform the Defendants and allow them to comment. The Applicant maintained the application, and on 28 October 2024, the Defendants submitted a detailed objection. They argued that the application was unmotivated, that the Applicant could have obtained sufficient information through prior correspondence or by reviewing the publicly available product, and that the inclusion of Footbridge Group AB appeared to result from the Applicant confusing two companies. The Defendants provided extensive details on the functionality of EXPRO HUB to demonstrate non-infringement.
On 26 November 2024, the Applicant withdrew the application based on the Defendants' detailed statement. The Defendants did not object to the withdrawal but maintained requests for: (a) restricting the Applicant's use of information in Exhibits 17-19 to these proceedings and prohibiting sharing with third parties; (b) reimbursement of SEK 269,798 each in legal costs; and (c) arguing that the costs ceiling should not be a joint cap for multiple defendants.
The Court addressed two main issues. First, regarding confidentiality, the Court found that Exhibits 17-19 contained detailed information on the functionality and structure of EXPRO HUB, which was the result of costly R&D work, had commercial value, was not readily available, and was kept secret by the Defendants. The Court granted the confidentiality request, restricting the Applicant's use of the information to these proceedings and prohibiting sharing with third parties, with potential penalty payments for culpable breach.
Second, regarding costs, the Court applied Article 69 UPCA and Rule 152.2 RoP, holding that the unsuccessful party should bear reasonable and proportionate costs. The Court rejected the Defendants' argument that the EUR 38,000 ceiling should not be a joint cap, reasoning that the Administrative Committee's decision clearly states ceilings apply 'regardless of the number of parties' and that the value of the proceeding is set for the whole proceeding, not per defendant. The Court found the case was not complex enough to justify raising the ceiling. While acknowledging the Defendants' strong need to defend themselves against potentially being forced to disclose trade secrets to a competitor, the Court also noted the application was withdrawn at an early stage. The Court awarded each Defendant SEK 225,000, including expenses not covered by the ceiling, finding this amount reasonable and proportionate. The value of the proceeding was set at EUR 249,000.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Nordic Baltic Regional Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Footbridge Group AB , Brunngård Group AB vs Imbox Protection A/S is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Acer Computer GmbHvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Acer Computer GmbH for public access to written pleadings and evidence filed in related patent amendment proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024) concerning EP 2 661 892 B1, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. Acer argued that access was necessary to assess the validity of the patent, particularly because HP had filed an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent. The Defendant (Nokia) did not oppose the request but argued that Acer must ensure third parties do not receive access to the documents. The presiding judge granted the application for file inspection.
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Italy srl
This order concerns two generic applications (App_19959/2024 and App_23242/2024) lodged in revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed a subsequent application to amend the patent after the closing of the written procedure, proposing one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The claimant Meril Italy srl submitted comments leaving the admission decision to the Court's discretion while requesting additional time to file an additional defence if the amendment was admitted. The presiding judge addressed the Court's discretionary powers under Rule 30(2) RoP regarding the admission of subsequent requests to amend a patent after the written procedure has closed.
Scandit AGvsRespondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Scandit AG's request for a 20% reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of Hand Held Products' application for interim measures. The Local Division Munich had previously issued an injunction against Scandit for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10 of EP 3 866 051, which Scandit appealed. After the oral hearing, Hand Held Products withdrew its application for interim measures, and the Court of Appeal terminated the proceedings. Scandit sought partial reimbursement of court fees, arguing that the oral proceedings had not yet concluded because no final decision on the merits had been pronounced.
Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis FrancevsDr Reddy's Srl, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel for use in treating prostate cancer. The claimants, comprising multiple Sanofi entities, brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur ordered that preliminary objections be dealt with in the main proceedings and set out the schedule for the remaining written and oral procedure.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLCvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The Claimant, Total Semiconductor, LLC, applied under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its case to include the AM67x product as an additional attacked embodiment, arguing that the Defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had begun offering this new product in Germany after the original Statement of Claim was filed. The Defendants opposed the amendment, contending it could have been made earlier and would unfairly hinder their defence. The Court postponed the final decision on the amendment application until the oral hearing scheduled for 22 and 23 July 2025, while granting the Defendants the opportunity to respond to the amendments in substance.
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.