Executive Summary
In a complex infringement and revocation case concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order. The defendants sought to delay proceedings by requesting time to respond to an appellate court's decision. The Court rejected this motion, indicating that the main substantive proceedings are moving forward without further delays based on the appeal ruling. This highlights the strict procedural management of UPC cases.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
This procedural order addressed a motion by the defendants to postpone further written submissions until they could comment on a prior ruling by the Court of Appeal. The Local Chamber denied this request, maintaining the current procedural timeline in the main action.
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 Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH vs Mammut Sports Group AG is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Prinoth S.p.A.vsXelom s.r.l.
This UPC decision concerns a motion to review an urgent order for evidence preservation, inspection, and seizure granted by Prinoth S.p.A. against Xelom s.r.l. The dispute centers on alleged infringement of patents related to snow groomers (battipista). The Tribunal upheld the original protective measure, emphasizing that preliminary injunctions based on urgency require only a statistical likelihood of evidence destruction, not concrete proof. This ruling provides important guidance on the scope and quantification of damages in urgent IP proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order in the Edwards Lifesciences v Meril case focused on managing the complex infringement and revocation proceedings. Key issues included the claimant's request to amend its claims (e.g., including Romania) and the defendants' requests for a court expert. The Court set deadlines for parties to provide technical evidence, cost estimates, and clarified procedural steps moving toward the oral hearing.
NJOY Netherlands B.V.vsJuul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application to withdraw an appeal in a patent revocation case involving vaping technology. The court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal after NJOY consented, closing the appellate proceedings. Despite allowing the withdrawal, the court applied standard cost rules, ruling that Juul Labs, as the appellant who withdrew, was ultimately unsuccessful and must cover NJOY's legal costs for the appeal.
ArcelorMittalvsXPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Sweden) AB, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS (Danemark) ApS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE LUXEMBOURG S.A., XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl and HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA
ArcelorMittal initiated an infringement action against numerous XPENG-related entities concerning a patent covering coated steel strips and stamped products. However, the claimant subsequently filed an application to withdraw the suit, citing a settlement reached with the defendants. The UPC Court granted the withdrawal request, formally closing the proceedings. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to exit litigation early when settlements are reached.
beMatrix NV.vsYaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a rectification of an earlier provisional measures order in the dispute between beMatrix NV. and Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. The original application sought preliminary injunctions against alleged infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1, which covers display modules for temporary exhibition stands. The Court ultimately corrected a clerical error in its prior ruling, ensuring that the Defendant was properly ordered to cease and desist from infringing the patent. This highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting administrative or drafting errors.
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.