Short Summary
A revocation action was brought by WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna against VILPE OY concerning European patent EP 2 649 380. An interim conference was held on 9 October 2025 before the judge-rapporteur, who issued an order on 10 October 2025 setting out the procedural decisions taken. Key rulings included deeming the Claimant's Rejoinder timely, rejecting the Claimant's request to forgo translations of documents D1, D2, and D4, admitting a warning letter into the proceedings, setting the case value at EUR 630,000, and confirming the oral hearing for 3 December 2025.
Detailed Summary
The Claimant, WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna, a Polish entity based in Babienica, Poland, represented by Oskar Ginko of AOMB Polska sp. z o. o., brought a revocation action on 2 April 2025 against the Defendant, VILPE OY, a Finnish entity based in Mustasaari, Finland, represented by Tatu Ahlskog and Jarkko Tiilikainen of Laine IP Oy. The patent at issue was European patent EP 2 649 380. The proceedings were conducted in English before Panel 1 of the Central Division (Section Munich), with Judge-rapporteur András Kupecz presiding. The action was registered as Action No. UPC 280/2025.
The dispute centered on a revocation action concerning EP 2 649 380. During the interim conference held on 9 October 2025, several procedural matters were raised by the parties. The Claimant submitted a Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence to the Application to amend dated 28 September 2025, which was received by the Court on 6 October 2025. The Claimant also requested that documents D1, D2, and D4 need not be translated. The Defendant sought to re-order its auxiliary requests and to submit corrections to the translation of document D1 (D1a). Additionally, the Claimant sought admission of a 'Warning letter' submitted as attachment 1 to its Reply to the Defence to Revocation dated 1 August 2025.
& Analysis: The judge-rapporteur addressed each procedural matter raised at the interim conference. The Court accepted the Claimant's Rejoinder as timely despite its late receipt, deeming it submitted timely and part of the case file. The Court rejected the Claimant's request to forgo translations of documents D1, D2, and D4, ordering the Claimant to provide translations of D2 and D4 by 20 October 2025. The Defendant was permitted to re-order its auxiliary requests and to submit corrections to the translation of D1 (D1a) by the same date. The 'Warning letter' was admitted into the proceedings. The Court assessed and set the value of the case at EUR 630,000.
Final Order & Ruling: The judge-rapporteur issued the order on 10 October 2025, confirming the oral hearing date of Wednesday, 3 December 2025, at 9:30 AM at the premises of the Central Division in Munich. Parties were permitted to use visual aids such as PowerPoint presentations, provided these were submitted to the Court and the other party by Friday, 28 November 2025, at noon CET. Any other decisions were reserved for the panel to take after hearing the parties at the oral hearing.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section. Understanding the court's reasoning in WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna vs Vilpe Oy is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sinocare Inc., No. 265, Guyan Road, Hi-Tech Zone, Changsha,, A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., Via Sette Santi 3, 50131 FirvsAbbott Diabetes Care Inc., 1360 South Loop Road, Alameda, CA, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
This appeal concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., who were found to infringe the patent through their GlucoMen iCan product. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction prohibiting the manufacture, marketing, and sale of the GlucoMen iCan in the UPC territory and ordered the Appellants to pay €200,000 as an interim award of costs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTesla Germany GmbH a.o.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 1 612 910 B1, titled 'Monitoring circuit for on-board power supply and power supply control.' The plaintiff, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, alleged that the defendants, Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, infringed the patent through the production and sale of Tesla vehicles manufactured at the Grünheide facility near Berlin. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Hamburg issued its decision on August 26, 2024, addressing procedural matters regarding CMS workflow usage and the scope of partial revocation under the applicable procedural rules.
Syngenta LimitedvsRespondent
Syngenta Limited applied to the Local Division Munich for leave to amend its claim to extend the territorial scope of the infringement action to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom, following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (C-3999/22). Sumi Agro opposed, arguing the amendment could have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. The Court granted the application, holding that Syngenta could not reasonably have been expected to include the non-UPC territories in its original statement of claim, and adjusted the procedural timetable accordingly.
Insulet CorporationvsRespondent
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits, since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore,
EOFLOW Co., Ltd.vsInsulet Corporation
In principle, the costs of the proceedings are not covered by confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP or by the attorney-client privilege unless they are specifically indicative of the company's financial capacity, its commercial strategy, or the importance of the patent as a corporate asset. Applying these principles, confidentiality as a general principle might also be granted to costs incurred by companies for legal services relating to litigation and patent protection, since this informatio
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.