UPC CFI 347/2024
1. Juli 2024·EP3320602 · ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE PROVIDED WITH A RESERVOIR OF LUBRICANT FOR LUBRICATING A ROLLING BEARING AND FOR COOLING THE MACHINE
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 37931/2024
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Valeo ElectrificationUnternehmen
Vertreter- Felix Roediger-Bird & Bird LLP
- Jonas Smeets-Bird & Bird LLP
- Fabian Saupe-Bird & Bird LLP
- Nicolas Cardonmitwirkend
- Amandine Ricardmitwirkend
- Florian Saadimitwirkend
Beklagte- Magna PT B.V. & Co. KGUnternehmen
- Magna PT s.r.o.Unternehmen
- Magna International France, SARLUnternehmen
Vertreter- Klaus Haft-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Klaus
- Sabine Agé-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Sebastian Kratzer-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Wolfgang Kellentermitwirkend-Hengeler Mueller
- Jan Ackermannmitwirkend-Cohausz & Florack
- Felipe von Heeremanmitwirkend-Cohausz & Florack
- Margarete Rittstiegmitwirkend-Cohausz & Florack
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringElectrical machinery, apparatus, energy
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 21. Aug. 2024
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 31. Okt. 2024
| Einstweilige Verfügung erlassen | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ronny Thomas | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Mélanie Bessaud | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Berenice Thom | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Alessandro Sanchini | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Valeo Group (34 Verfahren)·Magna Group (21 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 9 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 719/2024·UPC CoA 689/2024·UPC CoA 691/2024·UPC CFI 657/2024·UPC CFI 459/2024 und 4 weitere
1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2024
- 2024-10-31Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: 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 anzeigen (6)
- Preliminary injunction (Art. 62 UPCA)
- Rebuttable presumption of patent proprietorship (R. 8.5(c) RoP)
- Good faith and abuse of title
- Urgency (R. 211.4 RoP)
- Balance of interests
- Validity assessment in PI proceedings
- 2024-09-25
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the Magna v. Valeo proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602, addressing the rules on evidence applicable in provisional measures (preliminary injunction) proceedings under R. 9 RoP and R. 210.2 RoP, in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 8 October 2024.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Rules on evidence in preliminary injunction proceedings (R. 9 RoP, R. 210.2 RoP)
- Preparation for oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings
- 2024-08-21Application RoP262AÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP restricting access to confidential information submitted by Magna entities (defendants) in their Statement of defence and Rejoinder, relating to supply chain and trade secrets. Access was limited to specific named representatives of Valeo.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Confidentiality order under R.262A RoP
- Protection of trade secrets in proceedings
- Access restrictions to confidential information
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-04-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-04-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Defendant | 2026-04-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Defendant | 2026-04-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Defendant | 2026-04-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Confirmation of appointment | 2025-07-22 | Öffentlich |
| Comments of Defendants | 2025-01-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2024-12-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application to withdraw | 2024-12-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
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.