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
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.