Executive Summary
This procedural order in the UPC case between Hand Held Products and Scandit AG confirms the upcoming oral hearing date for infringement proceedings related to EP 3 866 051. The court addressed several key procedural issues, including allowing a partial withdrawal of claims and setting the financial value of the entire dispute at €7.5 million. While no substantive ruling was made on infringement or revocation, the order provides clear guidelines on evidence presentation (e.g., use of PowerPoint) and the handling of delayed submissions.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court allowed the partial withdrawal of claims (Teilklagerücknahme) and established the financial value of the proceedings at 7.5 million EUR (€3M for infringement claim, €4.5M for counterclaim). The decision also set procedural rules regarding the admissibility of delayed submissions and the use of PowerPoint presentations.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hand Held Products, Inc. vs Scandit AG is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Dyson Technology LimitedvsDreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson successfully appealed a provisional measures decision against Dreame's hair styling products before the UPC Court of Appeal. The court upheld the injunction and extended its scope to cover newer versions of Dreame's curling attachments, confirming that infringement is sufficient grounds for preventing future unauthorized use. This ruling provides clarity on how courts interpret claim features in relation to physical configurations and reinforces the broad application of provisional measures.
Promosome LLCvsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Promosome LLC's request to classify specific license agreement exhibits as confidential against the BioNTech/Pfizer consortium. This decision reinforces the protection of trade secrets and sensitive commercial information within the UPC framework. The Court meticulously defined who could access the documents, ensuring that confidentiality obligations extend beyond the conclusion of the proceedings.
NJOY Netherlands B.V.vsJuul Labs International Inc.
In a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990, the UPC Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs. This decision was based on the accelerated timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. The ruling highlights the practical mechanism for coordinating litigation between the UPC and national/EPO bodies when decisions are expected rapidly.
bellissa HAAS GmbHvsWindhager Handels GmbH (and Johann Windhager, Stefan Windhager)
This UPC decision addresses a complex infringement case involving interlocking metal strips used for garden edging. The court issued significant legal guidance, establishing that merely offering or supplying components designed to assemble easily constitutes direct patent infringement. While the claimant secured an injunction and damages against the main defendant, the overall infringement claim was partially dismissed, highlighting the nuanced application of component supply rules in UPC litigation.
Insulet CorporationvsEOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge by EOFlow against penalty payments and costs imposed by the Court of First Instance following an infringement finding related to insulin pump technology. EOFlow sought discretionary review, arguing that procedural deadlines were not strictly applicable in their case. The CoA ultimately dismissed this request, emphasizing strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure (R. 220.3 RoP). This ruling serves as a strong reminder for patent practitioners about the critical importance of timely procedural filings within the UPC framework.
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.