Executive Summary
This interim decision in the Milan Local Division addresses the valuation of a complex patent dispute involving Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against AWM s.r.l. The court was tasked with setting the value for cost assessment purposes, considering both infringement and revocation claims related to high-value mechanical machines. Despite disputes over sales volume and royalty rates, the judge-rapporteur set the value at EUR 2 million for each action, relying on proportionality principles due to a lack of supporting economic data.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
In the absence of precise economic data from either party, the judge-rapporteur applied general principles of proportionality to accept the Claimant's valuation of the case. This determination sets the value for cost assessment purposes but remains subject to reconsideration by the Panel when deciding the merits of the case.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Milan (IT) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Progress Maschinen & Automation AG vs AWM s.r.l. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonvsASUSTek Computer Inc.
Ericsson successfully sought leave to amend its preliminary injunction application in the UPC, specifically adjusting the scope of liability concerning Arvato's role as a service intermediary. The Court granted this amendment, allowing Ericsson to proceed with direct infringement claims against ASUSTek and Digital River Ireland while limiting Arvato's liability under Article 62(1) UPCA. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex supply chain litigation by allowing claimants to refine their legal theories based on factual developments.
Valeo ElectrificationvsMagna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In a procedural decision concerning EP 3 320 604 B1, the UPC Local Division allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Valeo Electrification withdrew its patent infringement action against Magna entities, while the Defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and a license. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to the closure of complex IP litigation without a substantive ruling on validity or infringement.
Meril Italy srlvsSWAT Medical AB
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application for cost allocation in the context of public access to the register. The applicants sought reimbursement of costs incurred during a prior proceeding regarding their request for access. The Court ruled that because the underlying proceedings were administrative, aimed at enhancing judicial transparency rather than resolving private rights disputes, they did not constitute a 'decision on the merits'. Consequently, the application for cost recovery was dismissed.
Fives ECL, SASvsREEL GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional question: whether the Unified Patent Court can hear an independent claim for damages following a successful national infringement judgment. The court affirmed that since the damage claim is rooted in patent infringement, it falls under the scope of Article 32(1)(a) EPC. This ruling provides significant clarity and predictability for patentees seeking to enforce their rights across the UPC system.
President and Fellows of Harvard CollegevsNanoString Technologies Inc.
This decision addresses the complex issue of managing a large number of auxiliary requests filed by Claimant 2 (Harvard College) in an application to amend a patent, while parallel opposition proceedings are ongoing at the EPO. The Court recognized that given the extensive validity attacks, limiting the amendments strictly is not feasible under the principle of fairness. Consequently, the proceedings were stayed pending the EPO's decision, and Harvard was instructed to consolidate its requests for submission shortly thereafter.
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.