Executive Summary
This UPC decision addresses a procedural matter following the initial invalidation of EP 1 838 002. The court allowed Avago Technologies to withdraw its cost determination application, effectively ending that specific proceeding. Crucially, the ruling established that in this context, each party must bear their own costs, providing clarity on cost allocation after a patent's revocation.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Local Division granted leave to withdraw the cost determination request, concluding the procedure. Furthermore, it clarified that under Rule 265.2 (c) of the Rules of Procedure, each party is responsible for bearing their own costs in the cost assessment proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Munich (DE) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
CANÈ S.p.A.vsFRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
In a case concerning infringement of EP3181168, CANÈ S.p.A. and FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE reached an amicable settlement before the UPC Paris Local Division. The court formally homologated this transaction, bringing an end to the litigation. A key aspect of the decision was the ruling on procedural costs, where the claimant successfully claimed a 60% reimbursement based on the timing of the agreement.
Motorola Mobility LLCvsTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
In this UPC case concerning a 5G SEP patent (EP3342086), Motorola Mobility LLC sought leave to amend its infringement claim to include requests for injunctive relief and product recall against Ericsson. The Court of First Instance rejected the application, ruling that the Claimant had not acted with sufficient diligence. The court noted that similar remedies could have been requested earlier, citing prior actions in the UK, thereby limiting the ability of SEP holders to unilaterally delay enforcement while claiming FRAND obligations.
Valeo ElectrificationvsMagna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In this procedural order concerning an application for provisional measures, the UPC granted Valeo Electrification leave to change its claim regarding EP 3 320 602 B1. The Applicant sought to unconditionally limit a previously 'alternatively' claimed feature in its injunction request. The Court ruled that R. 263 RoP applies fully to PI proceedings and found that this specific limitation was favorable to the Defendants as it narrowed the scope of the potential preliminary injunctions, thus allowing the amendment.
10x Genomics, Inc.vsVizgen, Inc.
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement, the court issued a complex order regarding document disclosure stemming from parallel US litigation. The respondent sought to introduce evidence related to non-technical issues (such as competitive practices) into the European proceedings. The court granted the submission of specific documents but imposed stringent confidentiality requirements ('Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only'), balancing the need for evidence with protecting trade secrets.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsSIBIO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; UMEDWINGS NETHERLANDS B.V.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached in an application for provisional measures concerning EP 2 393 417 B1, which covers analyte sensors. The settlement mandates that the Defendants cease offering the infringing products in Germany, France, and the Netherlands, destroy existing stock, recall products from distribution channels, and compensate the Applicant for all damages on the merits. This case highlights how parties can resolve complex infringement disputes early through negotiated settlements 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.