Short Summary
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) before the Düsseldorf Local Division against three Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604 B1, a European patent relating to a rotary electric machine with angular position adjustment. The court granted the preliminary injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease manufacturing, offering, and selling infringing embodiments, with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations subject to security, and conditioned enforcement on the Applicant providing EUR 2,500,000 in security.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an Application for provisional measures filed by Valeo Electrification against Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC_CFI_368/2024), decided on 31 October 2024.
The patent in suit, EP 3 320 604 B1, titled "Rotary electric machine equipped with a means of adjusting the angular position of the shaft," was filed on 7 July 2016 claiming priority from a French patent of 10 July 2015, and was granted on 2 March 2022. It was in force in Germany and France, with no opposition filed. The patent concerns rotary electric machines for motor vehicles with a cooling circuit allowing lubricating/cooling liquid flow.
On 2 August 2024, Valeo filed an infringement action (ACT_44736/2024). Defendant 1 filed a vindication action before the Paris Court of First Instance on 13 September 2024, and on 4 October 2024, Magna Automotive Holding (Germany) GmbH filed a revocation action at the Central Division in Paris seeking revocation of the patent in France and Germany. Valeo Electrification was the successor entity following a merger and renaming of the original registered assignee.
The Defendants raised several objections: (1) that Valeo was not the legitimate proprietor, arguing the patent had been unlawfully appropriated; (2) that the patent was likely invalid; (3) that Valeo delayed unreasonably in seeking provisional measures; and (4) that the balance of interests favored the Defendants.
The court addressed each objection. On entitlement, the court held that the material proprietor is deemed the patent proprietor for UPC proceedings, and the registered proprietor benefits from a strong rebuttable presumption (R. 8.5 RoP) that can only be rebutted in PI proceedings if the title is manifestly erroneous. The Defendants' good faith defense based on alleged unlawful appropriation failed because they had not brought a vindication action in due time before the national courts.
On validity, the court rejected reliance on general revocation rates of patents, holding that only the specific circumstances of the patent in suit matter. The court found the patent was not manifestly invalid.
On urgency, the court held there is no fixed deadline for filing provisional measures applications under R. 211.4 RoP; the question is whether the applicant's overall conduct shows enforcement is not urgent. The court found Valeo's delay (approximately 2.5 years from learning of the infringing activities) was not unreasonable given the complexity of the case.
On the balance of interests, the court weighed the harm to Valeo from continued infringement against the harm to the Defendants from the injunction, finding that the Defendants' claims of exceptional damage were not sufficiently substantiated, though the court acknowledged the need for a transition period for existing customer obligations.
The operative order: (I) The Defendants were prohibited from using the claimed embodiments in Germany and France, including manufacturing, offering, selling, importing, and possessing for those purposes; (II) An exception was granted for existing BMW delivery obligations (X1, X2, 1 Series, 2 Series Active Tourer, Mini Countryman models as of 8 October 2024), conditional on the Defendants providing EUR 500,000 security by 21 November 2024; (III) Recurring penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance were imposed; (IV) Defendants were ordered to provisionally bear EUR 14,700 in costs as joint and several debtors; (V) The orders were made effective upon the Applicant providing EUR 2,500,000 in security; and (VI) The application was dismissed in all other respects. The parties were given 15 days to appeal.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL vs Valeo Electrification 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.