Executive Summary
This UPC appellate decision addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the patent and ordered Belkin to recall, remove, and destroy infringing products. Crucially, the ruling provided significant legal guidance on interpreting 'offering' in commercial contexts and defined the specific conditions under which company directors can be held liable for patent infringement.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court clarified the scope of 'offering' under Art. 25 a) EPGÜ, stating it must be interpreted economically rather than strictly legally (invitatio ad offerendum). Furthermore, the ruling provided detailed guidance on the liability of company directors (Geschäftsführer), requiring them to have awareness not just of the facts but also of the illegality of the use.
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
Network System Technologies LLCvsVolkswagen AG
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by Volkswagen/Audi and Texas Instruments against Network System Technologies' infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The Court largely rejected jurisdictional challenges, allowing the case to proceed. However, it significantly narrowed the scope of alleged infringement, focusing primarily on the TI DRA79x SoC, while deferring complex issues like UK damages to the main proceedings. This ruling signals a careful application of procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbHvsBelparts Group N.V.
This procedural order addressed a request by Belparts Group N.V. to join its counterclaim for infringement (pending before the CD Paris) with IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH's revocation action (before the CD Paris), and subsequently, to refer another case between divisions. The Court ultimately rejected this connection joinder request. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of R. 340 RoP, emphasizing that procedural choices made by parties must align with the core principles of efficient justice and avoiding conflicting decisions.
Topsoe A/SvsSYPOX GmbH
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC concerns a procedural matter related to an application for inspection and evidence gathering concerning EP 3 802 413 B1. The court did not rule on the merits but instead corrected factual errors in the initial filing, specifically regarding the precise addresses of the respondent's various locations. This highlights the importance of meticulous detail when submitting procedural applications to the UPC.
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.
Winnow Solutions LimitedvsOrbisk B.V.
This UPC decision between Winnow Solutions Limited and Orbisk B.V. addresses the infringement of EP 3198245, a patent covering food waste monitoring systems. The court provided detailed rulings on cost allocation in complex litigation scenarios involving partial revocation. The judgment is significant for practitioners as it clarifies the financial consequences when a patent's validity is only challenged or upheld partially.
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.