ACT_459987/2023

UPC has jurisdiction over acts of infringement committed before 1 June 2023

Hinweis: The Munich Local Division held that the UPC's jurisdiction extends to pre-UPCA infringement acts, in the absence of conflicting intertemporal provisions.

Infringement action may proceed and be decided despite referral of counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division

Hinweis: Following bifurcation and the Central Division Paris upholding the patent (in amended form), the local division found it was required to proceed with the infringement decision; a stay post-central division decision is limited to exceptional circumstances (manifestly prima facie erroneous decisions).

Injunctive relief and corrective measures may be ordered across all contracting member states where the patent has effect

Hinweis: The court confirmed that pan-European relief is available once infringement is proven for at least one contracting member state, which Edwards established.

Third-party interests (patient safety) must be considered in scope of corrective measures

Hinweis: The court partially accepted this argument, carving out XL devices already scheduled for patient implantation by 15 November 2024 from the recall and destruction orders.

Stay of infringement proceedings warranted because Central Division Paris decision was manifestly and prima facie erroneous for failing to consider key invalidity arguments

Begründung: The local division held that a stay post-central division decision is only available in exceptional circumstances where the decision is manifestly and prima facie erroneous; the alleged failure to address certain arguments did not meet this threshold, and appeal proceedings were already pending.

Patent EP 3 646 825 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)

Begründung: The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed; the patent had been upheld (in amended form) by the Central Division Paris Section and was held valid for purposes of the infringement action.