ACT 37931/2024
—·EP3320602: ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE PROVIDED WITH A RESERVOIR OF LUBRICANT FOR LUBRICATING A ROLLING BEARING AND FOR COOLING THE MACHINE
- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter: Felix Rödiger (Bird & Bird LLP); Jonas Smeets (Bird & Bird LLP); Fabian Saupe (Bird & Bird LLP)
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Richter
- Ronny Thomas · Presiding Judge
- Berenice Thom · Legally Qualified Judge
- Mélanie Bessaud · Legally Qualified Judge
- Alessandro Sanchini · Technically Qualified Judge
- Technology
- Power Generation
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 31. Okt. 2024
- 2024-10-31PI erteiltEinstweilige VerfügungApplication for provisional measures
Order from the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_347/2024) granting Valeo Electrification's application for provisional measures against Magna PT entities concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from manufacturing, offering, marketing, using or importing the infringing automotive electrification products. Penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per violation were ordered. The injunction was conditional on Valeo providing security of EUR 2,500,000. The Court addressed issues of patent proprietorship (rebuttable presumption), urgency, and validity, finding the patent more likely than not valid.
Rechtsfragen:Preliminary injunction (Art. 62 UPCA)Rebuttable presumption of patent proprietorship (R. 8.5(c) RoP)Good faith and abuse of titleUrgency (R. 211.4 RoP)Balance of interestsValidity assessment in PI proceedings
- 9FE14C8DE9A51B0BA9EF24B8FD510D03_en.pdf2024-10-31EN
Valeo Electrification applied for provisional measures before the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna PT entities concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, a patent for a rotary electric machine with a lubricant reservoir for rolling bearings used in automotive electrification. The court granted a preliminary injunction, finding the patent more likely than not valid, urgency established despite some delay, and the registered proprietorship presumption satisfied, ordering cessation of the allegedly infringing acts subject to EUR 2,500,000 security to be provided by Valeo.
Registered patent proprietor benefits from a strong rebuttable presumption of title sufficient for PI proceedings
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 8.5(c) RoPHinweis: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that the registered patent proprietor may initially rely on a rebuttable presumption of entitlement in PI proceedings; this presumption can only be rebutted if title is manifestly erroneous.
Defendant's bad faith claim regarding unlawful appropriation of patent cannot succeed where defendant failed to bring a vindication action before national courts in due time
KlägerHinweis: The court rejected defendants' assertion that Valeo had unlawfully appropriated the patent as a basis for weighing interests against the applicant, because the defendants had not brought a timely vindication action.
Patent more likely than not valid for purposes of PI proceedings
KlägerHinweis: The court found that general revocation rate statistics cannot be used to infer invalidity; only the specific patent in suit is relevant, and Valeo's patent EP 3 320 602 was found more likely than not to be valid.
Urgency exists despite some delay; no fixed deadline applies and applicant's overall conduct must be assessed
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoPHinweis: The court held that there is no fixed deadline for filing a PI application; whether delay is unreasonable depends on all circumstances of the individual case, and Valeo's overall conduct did not demonstrate that enforcement was non-urgent.
Valeo lacks entitlement to bring PI proceedings / patent title is manifestly erroneous
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 8.5(c) RoPBegründung: The rebuttable presumption attached to registered patent proprietorship is a strong presumption; defendants failed to demonstrate that Valeo's title was manifestly erroneous, and they had not brought a vindication action.
General revocation rates of patents indicate the patent is more likely than not invalid
BeklagterBegründung: The court held that general revocation rates are irrelevant; only the validity of the specific patent in suit matters for the PI validity assessment.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.