Short Summary
The Local Chamber Vienna addressed an alleged infringement of European Patent 2 643 717 brought by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH, with Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. intervening. The court established guiding principles on four key issues: the mandatory formal counterclaim for revocation when invalidity is pleaded, the distinction between recall and final removal of infringing products, the discretionary nature of publication orders, and the cost treatment of interveners as analogous to parties.
Detailed Summary
The proceedings were conducted before the Local Chamber Vienna under case reference UPC_CFI_33/2024 (ACT_4261/2024), concerning European Patent 2 643 717. The claimant was SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, represented by NOMOS Rechtsanwälte GmbH. The defendant was STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH, represented by SONN Patentanwälte GmbH & Co KG. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., a Chinese entity, participated as an intervener (Streithelferin), represented by Kliment & Henhapel Patentanwälte OG and Gassauer-Fleissner Rechtsanwälte GmbH.
The dispute centered on an alleged patent infringement concerning European Patent 2 643 717. The defendant raised an invalidity objection based on exceeding the original disclosure (Überschreitung der Ursprungsoffenbarung). The case also involved questions regarding the appropriate scope of remedial measures, specifically the distinction between recall of infringing products and their final removal from distribution channels. Additionally, the claimant sought publication of the decision, and the question arose regarding cost allocation as between the parties and the intervener.
& Analysis:
The court addressed four principal legal issues. First, regarding the invalidity defense, the court held that under Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure, when a defendant alleges that the patent is invalid, the statement of defense must contain a counterclaim for revocation of the patent against the patent proprietor in accordance with Rule 42 RoP. Since the defendant failed to file such a formal counterclaim, the court declined to address the substantive invalidity objection based on exceeding the original disclosure.
Second, regarding remedies, the court distinguished between recall of infringing products and their final removal from distribution channels, holding that final removal is an independent measure separate from recall. Removal is only available where the infringer has the actual and legal means to carry it out, and the formulation of concrete and sufficiently specific measures must be oriented accordingly.
Third, regarding publication under Article 80 EPGÜ, the court held that the decision to permit publication lies within the court's discretion. For such an order to be made, the claimant's interest in publication must outweigh any adverse consequences for the defendant. Publication is generally only considered when the claimant's protection is not already ensured by other measures. The court referenced prior decisions (UPC_CFI_373/2023, SodaStream v. Aarke; UPC_CFI_16/2024, Ortovox v. Mammut) and noted that the preventive purposes of Article 80 EPGÜ (deterrence of future infringers and public awareness) must be supported by specific submissions demonstrating the preventive interest in the particular infringement case.
Fourth, regarding costs, although the Rules of Procedure contain no separate cost provision for interveners, the court derived from the principle of Rule 315.4 RoP that an intervener is to be treated like a party for cost-bearing purposes. Where the supported party loses—as in the present case—a proportionate cost contribution would be justified if the intervener's participation caused additional effort for the prevailing party. In any event, an intervener on the losing side must bear its own costs.
Final Order & Ruling:
The decision was issued on January 15, 2025, by the Local Chamber Vienna. The court established guiding principles (Leitsätze) on the four key issues: (1) the mandatory nature of a formal revocation counterclaim when invalidity is pleaded, with the consequence that unsubstantiated invalidity objections will not be addressed; (2) the distinction between recall and final removal from distribution channels as separate remedial measures; (3) the discretionary nature of publication orders under Article 80 EPGÜ requiring a balancing of interests; and (4) the cost treatment of interveners as analogous to parties under Rule 315.4 RoP.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Vienna (AT) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH. vs STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.