Executive Summary
This UPC appeal case concerned RiVOLUTiON GmbH's attempt to suspend an injunction issued by the Local Court Munich against it. Rivolution argued that the original decision contained evident legal errors regarding procedural fairness, damages, and enforcement security. The Appeals Chamber ruled that most of these alleged errors could not be assessed without reviewing the detailed grounds of the initial judgment. Consequently, the request for suspension was denied, meaning the injunction remains in effect until further appeal.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
A party can only argue for an evident error in a challenged decision if the error is apparent without knowledge of the decision's grounds. Since many alleged errors (e.g., costs, enforcement security) require review of the detailed reasoning, they cannot be assessed at this stage. Furthermore, since Rivolution was not challenging the patent infringement finding itself, its obligation to cease infringing activities remains.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in RiVOLUTiON GmbH vs Cilag GmbH International is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amgen N.V.vsRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Amgen against a prior ruling in infringement proceedings. The case, involving major biotech players like Regeneron and Sanofi, was ultimately withdrawn because the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Although the court permitted the procedural withdrawal, it strictly denied Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees, highlighting the precise application of UPC Rules of Procedure regarding timing and fee recovery.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITEDvsNOVAWELL
This procedural order addressed the protection of confidential information in a trade secret dispute between C-Kore Systems Limited and Novawell. The Court established a confidentiality club to manage documents gathered during a Saisie procedure, ensuring compliance with EU trade secret directives and UPC rules. Crucially, the ruling affirmed that mutual agreement can override strict procedural requirements regarding the composition of the club, provided fairness is maintained.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 875 683. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and thus the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the procedural effectiveness of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. The ruling confirms that formal requirements for withdrawal are sufficient, even without explicit proof of power of attorney by a registered UPC representative.
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) LimitedvsPR Medical s.r.l.
This Milan Local Division decision addressed a preliminary objection concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case. The defendant argued that since they were based in Italy, the trial must proceed in Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. However, the Court rejected this argument, finding that because the claimant alleged infringing activities across various contracting states (including Germany and via global website presence), the exception to the language rule did not apply. The decision affirms the principle that jurisdiction can be established where infringement occurs or may occur, allowing for flexibility in procedural choices.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLCvsTexas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In this UPC case concerning a semiconductor patent, the court addressed a critical procedural issue: security for costs. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant, a non-practicing entity structured as a licensing company, should provide financial guarantees to cover potential legal expenses. The Court rejected the Claimant's arguments regarding its startup status and co-working space operations, upholding the requirement for security. This decision reinforces the UPC's strict stance on ensuring procedural fairness and cost recovery in infringement actions.
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.