Executive Summary
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the claimant sought to amend its damages claim to include profits derived from ancillary sales of sealing material and service contracts related to the allegedly infringing machines. The court addressed the admissibility of this clarification under R. 263 RoP, balancing the need for a front-loaded procedure against the defendant's right to defense. Ultimately, the court permitted the claimant to clarify its request without formal amendment while deferring the final decision on the scope of damages until after the oral hearing.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court of First Instance ruled that the original request for damages should be interpreted broadly enough to cover damages arising from sales of CeraPUR sealing materials and service/maintenance contracts, provided these are relevant for assessing the amount of damages. The court found this clarification admissible without needing a formal application under R. 263 RoP.
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 Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH vs CeraCon GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Visibly Inc.vsEasee Holding B.V., Easee B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect in a complex infringement and revocation case. The core issue was the appeal against a CFI order requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs. Given that the main proceedings had been stayed due to the insolvency of the Easee companies, the Court found that continuing the appeals served no purpose. This ruling emphasizes the practical application of procedural rules when external events, such as corporate insolvency, impact ongoing litigation in the UPC.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbHvsTandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In this cost determination case, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH for reimbursement of legal costs against Tandem Diabetes Care. The court firmly rejected the respondents' attempt to stay the proceedings based merely on a pending appeal on the merits, reinforcing the principle that successful parties should not be unduly delayed in receiving cost awards. After reviewing and adjusting various expense claims, including travel costs, the Court ultimately granted the requested compensation of EUR 117,741.62.
Dolby International ABvsRoku Inc.
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against infringement proceedings initiated by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. Roku argued that the EPC's structure violated fundamental EU rights, particularly concerning judicial independence and jurisdiction. The Court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that jurisdictional challenges must adhere strictly to the enumerated grounds in the Rules of Procedure. The ruling reinforces the established legal framework governing the UPC's competence and administrative flexibility.
Fujifilm CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request concerning the composition of the confidentiality club in an ongoing infringement action involving Fujifilm and Kodak. The court ruled that while the claimant could not fully expand its access authorizations, it was granted permission to replace certain members with others whose involvement did not pose an undue risk to the defendants' confidential information. This highlights the court's careful balancing act when managing procedural aspects of sensitive IP litigation.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.vsThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company. The Court granted the request to change the language from German to English, citing fairness and considering all relevant circumstances under Art. 49(5) UPCA. The ruling reinforces that the defendant's position is a decisive factor when weighing interests in such procedural matters.
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.