Executive Summary
In a procedural victory for settlement, the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court homologated an agreement between Scantrust and Advanced Track And Trace (ATT). The case, which had initially been brought as a revocation action against patent EP2364485, concluded with both parties agreeing to terminate the dispute. This decision underscores the UPC's role in facilitating amicable resolutions while maintaining confidentiality for sensitive transaction details.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The UPC Court confirmed its jurisdiction to approve a settlement agreement (transaction) under Article 79 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 365(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The court also ordered that certain details of the transaction remain confidential, in line with Rule 365(2).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat. Understanding the court's reasoning in Scantrust vs Advanced Track And Trace (ATT) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG et al.vsOna Patents SL
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Apple seeking to accelerate the appeal process and reduce the deadline for Ona's reply. The court ultimately denied the request, holding that while acceleration was possible, Apple failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to override Ona's right to a fair trial. This case underscores the judiciary's careful balancing act between party efficiency demands and fundamental procedural fairness within the UPC framework.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.vsRoche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes Care appealed a decision from the Central Division Paris regarding the revocation of EP 2 196 231, which covered an ambulatory drug infusion system. Before the Court of Appeal could rule on the appeal, both parties reached a settlement agreement. The UPC Court of Appeal subsequently confirmed this settlement, formally terminating all proceedings related to the patent.
Aylo Premium Ltd.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C.
In a significant decision concerning streaming technology, the UPC Central Division revoked the German national part of EP 3 822 805 B1. The dispute centered on the validity of an apparatus for adaptive-rate content streaming. While the revocation was limited to Germany, the ruling underscores the Court's ability to tailor the scope of patent invalidity across different UPC member states. This case is a key example of how national validation status impacts unitary proceedings.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTelefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC allowed Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited to withdraw its patent infringement lawsuit against Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties, indicating that an out-of-court settlement had been reached. This case highlights how procedural flexibility in the UPC allows for the termination of litigation when parties reach a consensual resolution.
Pfizer Inc.vsGlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants/counterclaimants) to withdraw its revocation action against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA concerning EP4183412. This decision was reached following mutual agreement between both parties. The Court also ordered the reimbursement of 60% of court fees paid by the withdrawing parties. This case highlights how procedural agreements and party consent can lead to the swift closure of complex patent 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.