Executive Summary
This UPC decision addressed a revocation action concerning EP 3 170 639 B1, which ultimately became moot when the patent holder voluntarily withdrew the patent. The court analyzed the equitable distribution of costs, noting that it is generally unfair to charge costs to a patent owner who withdraws immediately upon seeing relevant prior art presented in the lawsuit. Despite this finding regarding equity, the claimant was ordered to bear the procedural costs.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court ruled that it is generally inequitable to impose procedural costs on a patent holder who immediately withdraws their patent in response to the revocation action, especially when relevant prior art was presented for the first time with the claim. However, despite this principle, the claimant (patent owner) ultimately bore the costs of the proceedings.
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 Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH vs *** is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB
This procedural order addresses the resumption of a complex infringement and revocation action after the UPC proceedings were stayed pending a decision from the EPO Boards of Appeal (TBA). The Court established a tailored timetable, granting the claimant 14 days to file an amended statement of claim and the defendants 42 days to respond with their amended defense and counterclaim for revocation. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines when external decisions significantly alter the scope of the patent-in-suit.
Koninklijke Philips N.V.vsBelkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the core infringement finding, ordering Belkin to recall and destroy infringing products under Art. 64 EPGÜ. Crucially, the ruling provided significant guidance on interpreting 'offering' in commercial contexts and established clear legal boundaries regarding the liability of corporate directors for patent infringement.
Hartmann Packaging A/SvsOmni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.
In this UPC case concerning egg packaging technology (EP 2 755 901 B1), Hartmann Packaging A/S sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH for infringement and simultaneously filed a revocation counterclaim. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent rights. Crucially, the court also rejected the revocation counterclaim, affirming the validity of the patent while providing important guidance on interpreting 'the same invention' under Article 87 EPC.
Topsoe A/SvsSYPOX GmbH
Topsoe A/S sought provisional measures, specifically an order for inspection and evidence gathering at the premises of SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, ahead of a potential infringement lawsuit. The patent in question covers hydrogen production using steam methane reforming with an electrically heated catalyst bed. Although Topsoe successfully initiated the process, the Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for inspection and evidence preservation. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain preliminary investigative measures within the UPC framework.
Emboline, Inc.vsAorticLab srl
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for security for costs. The court ruled in favor of Emboline, Inc., requiring AorticLab srl to provide €200,000 in security. This decision highlights that when a party themselves raises concerns about insolvency following an injunction, it satisfies the legal requirement for granting security for costs under the UPC Agreement.
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.