Executive Summary
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Disney and InterDigital VC Holdings. The Defendants successfully argued for changing the court's language from German to English, aligning with the patent grant language. The Court upheld this request, citing principles that prioritize the defendant's position when balancing interests are equal, underscoring the practical importance of business context in UPC procedural matters.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court ruled that despite the Claimant's objections, the Defendants' request for changing the proceedings language to the patent grant language (English) was well-founded. The decision emphasized that when balancing interests is equal, the position of the defendant becomes the decisive factor, particularly given the defendants' business operations and resources.
Practitioner Note
This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Düsseldorf (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
Daedalus Prime LLCvsXiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed the method of serving a complaint in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against several Xiaomi and MediaTek entities. The plaintiff argued that certain German branch offices could serve as valid places for service under UPCA Rules 271.5 RoP, despite the defendants being foreign-domiciled. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the strict hierarchy of procedural rules governing international service. The ruling clarified that when defendants are domiciled outside the UPCA territory, standard international procedures like the Hague Service Convention must be followed under Rules 273 and 274 RoP. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established international legal frameworks for proper litigation procedure in the UPC.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.vsexpert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This UPC Appeal Court decision addressed a revocation action against an LED patent, focusing heavily on the interpretation of prior art and the scope of claims. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim did not impermissibly extend beyond the content of the earlier application. This ruling reinforces strict standards for interpreting disclosures in patent applications, particularly when dealing with translations of international filings.
Syntorr LPvsArthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning procedural fairness in the UPC, the Court of Appeal addressed an application for security for costs. The court held that if a claimant holds comprehensive litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement (AAE) from an EU insurer, this coverage is sufficient to mitigate the risk of non-recoverable legal costs. This decision provides substantial relief to SMEs and claimants by establishing that financial solvency can be demonstrated through robust insurance rather than solely relying on bank guarantees.
3V Sigma S.p.AvsA.G.A. S.r.l.
This UPC decision concerns a request for provisional measures aimed at protecting evidence related to alleged patent infringement in the cosmetic industry. 3V Sigma sought an order to secure technical and commercial documentation regarding a competing UV filter, MFSorb 513. Although the initial protective measure was granted against ACEF Srl, the subsequent appeal/request for review by AGA and ACEF was fully dismissed by the Milan Local Division. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements for applicants seeking ex parte evidence protection.
Messerle GmbHvsSabert Corporation Europe S.A.
In this UPC case, Messerle GmbH sued Sabert Corporation Europe S.A. for infringement and simultaneously filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 705 415 B1, which covers specialized food packaging. The court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. Beyond the substantive outcome, the decision highlighted critical procedural requirements within the UPC system, particularly concerning the timely presentation of evidence and arguments.
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.