Executive Summary
In this UPC decision, N.V. Nutricia and Nestlé Health Science reached a settlement leading to the withdrawal of the infringement action concerning EP 2 359 858 B1. The court confirmed that an estimated assessment is sufficient for valuing actions in settled cases. Although the infringement claim was dropped, the counterclaim for revocation was disposed of, with both parties ultimately bearing their own costs.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court confirmed that an estimated assessment based on known circumstances is sufficient when parties reach a settlement out of court regarding the value of the action (Rule 370.6 RoP). Despite disputes, the Court upheld the initial suggested values for both the infringement and revocation proceedings (€250,000 and €500,000 respectively), considering the limited scope and duration of the patent.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, 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 LLC.vsAudi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural point regarding the notification of default judgment risks. The court clarified that when ordering a party to provide security for costs, the warning about potential default proceedings (under R.355 RoP) does not need to be embedded in the main operative text of the order. Instead, it can be communicated through a separate judicial order. This ruling provides clarity on procedural requirements within UPC actions, particularly concerning cost security and its implications for case progression.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd.vsRoborock (HK) Limited
In this UPC decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for an ex-parte order concerning the inspection and preservation of evidence related to robot localization technology. The court ultimately revoked the existing provisional measure because the applicant's submission was deemed incomplete and misleading regarding the core facts. This ruling serves as a strong warning to applicants seeking urgent interim relief that procedural integrity is paramount, especially when relying on ex-parte proceedings.
Insulet CorporationvsEOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a dispute over the confidentiality of business information disclosed during infringement proceedings. EOFlow sought to classify internal data, such as turnover numbers and pricing, as confidential under R. 262.2 RoP. The court ruled against EOFlow, emphasizing that mere disclosure in litigation does not automatically grant trade secret protection if specific protective measures are absent. This reinforces the strict requirements for maintaining confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding the determination of FRAND license terms in essential patent litigation. Vivo challenged the Paris Local Division's ruling that deferred the FRAND claim to the main proceedings, arguing it lacked UPC competence. The CoA affirmed this deferral, establishing that the FRAND determination is intrinsically linked to and dependent upon the finding of infringement, thus making it a matter for the main court to decide.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.vsAiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
In a procedural order concerning security of legal costs, the UPC addressed concerns raised by several defendants regarding the financial stability of the claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants' request for security, setting the required amount at EUR 100,000. This decision underscores the court's power to manage procedural risks and ensure that patent holders can bear the costs associated with litigation.
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.