Executive Summary
In this UPC case, Robert Bosch GmbH sued Grizzly Tools and related entities for infringement of EP 3 030 383 across multiple EU states, including non-EPCU members like Poland, Spain, and the UK. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction over these foreign territories. The Mannheim Local Division decisively rejected these objections, affirming that the UPC possesses international competence to handle claims related to non-EPCU member states, consistent with recent CJEU jurisprudence (BSH Hausgeräte). This ruling reinforces the broad jurisdictional reach of the unified patent system.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court ruled that the International Patent Convention (UPC) has international and territorial jurisdiction over infringement claims in non-EPCU member states (like Poland, Spain, and the UK), provided the defendants are established within an EPCU Member State. This aligns with principles set by the CJEU in cases like BSH Hausgeräte.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Robert Bosch GmbH vs Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Atlas Global Technologies GmbHvsVantiva SA; Vantiva Technologies SAS; Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, the infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 353 901 were suspended. Atlas Global Technologies GmbH (Claimant) and Vantiva entities (Respondents) mutually agreed to this suspension. This decision highlights the parties' ability to manage complex UPC litigation through procedural agreements.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KGvsHimson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order (UPC_CFI_240/2023), Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG addressed its infringement claim against Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding patent EP2145848. The court focused heavily on case management, defining the scope of evidence and arguments for the upcoming oral hearing. Key issues included Himson's counterclaim for revocation, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, and the admissibility of video and testimonial evidence. Due to a general strike in Italy, the interim conference was postponed.
Labrador Diagnostics LLCvsbioMérieux SA
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA concerning the diagnostic instrument and method covered by EP 3 756 767 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. This decision highlights the procedural implications of bifurcated UPC cases, confirming that a finding of non-infringement renders the validity question moot for the immediate action. It also sets clear parameters regarding cost allocation in unsuccessful litigation.
HL Display ABvsBlack Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning retail merchandising technology, the UPC found that HL Display AB's patent covering systems for securing shelf accessories was validly infringed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s products. While granting the infringement claim and ordering substantial damages, the court also issued a key procedural holding: counterclaims seeking a declaration of non-infringement are inadmissible if the claimant has not previously asserted the patent against that specific product. This decision reinforces strict adherence to assertion requirements within UPC proceedings.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc.vsKoninklijke Philips N.V. Et al
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. brought an infringement action against Philips and its subsidiaries regarding a position therapy device covered by EP 2 437 696 B2. However, the Defendants successfully mounted a counterclaim for revocation. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately ruled that the patent was invalid and revoked it entirely. This decision highlights the significant risk associated with maintaining patents in the UPC without robust validity defenses.
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.