UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 360/2026

31. Jan. 2026·EP2005696 · APPLIANCED DOMAIN NAME SERVER

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Written Phase
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Division
Hamburg LD
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication · Computer technology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
8. Juni 2026
Letzte Entscheidung
10. Juni 2026
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Hamburg LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Sabine KlepschGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Stefan SchillingGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Daniel Severinsson—Gesperrt
Richter Andrea Perronace—Gesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Nixu FL IP Protection LLC (5 Verfahren)·Infoblox Inc. (3 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-06-10
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Hamburg Local Division ordered the Claimant (Nixu FL IP Protection LLC) to provide security for the Defendants' legal costs in the amount of EUR 200,000, pursuant to R. 158 RoP. The Court found that while the Claimant's U.S. domicile in Florida alone did not justify a security order, the fact that all of the Claimant's assets (essentially a patent portfolio) were pledged to third parties rendered it effectively assetless, warranting the order. The security must be provided within four weeks by deposit into the UPC account or by bank guarantee from an EU-licensed institution.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Security for costs under R. 158 RoP and Art. 69(4) UPCA
    • Whether U.S. (Florida) domicile alone justifies a security for costs order
    • Whether pledging of all patent portfolio assets and income to third parties renders a claimant effectively assetless
    • Balancing claimant's right to effective remedy (Art. 47 Charter) against defendants' interest in cost protection
    • Determination of case value for security amount calculation
  • 2026-06-08
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Hamburg Local Division granted in part the preliminary objection by Defendant 1 (Infoblox Inc., a US company), dismissing the claims against it as inadmissible for lack of international jurisdiction insofar as they relate to the UK national part of EP2005696, because the claimant failed to allege facts showing Infoblox Inc. jointly infringed the UK part together with the anchor defendants (Infoblox Germany GmbH and Nomios Germany GmbH). The remaining parts of the preliminary objection were dismissed, and the costs of the preliminary objection were treated as costs of the main proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
    • International jurisdiction over non-EU defendant (Art. 31 UPCA, Art. 71b(2) Brussels Ia Regulation)
    • Anchor defendant doctrine under Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation for UPC proceedings involving non-UPCA countries
    • Jurisdiction over UK national part of a European Patent (non-UPCA, non-EU territory)
    • Requirement to plead joint infringing acts in the target country for Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia jurisdiction
    • Distinction between Art. 4 (domicile) and Art. 8(1) (close connection) jurisdiction under Brussels Ia
    • Preliminary objection procedure (R. 19 RoP)
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung2026-10-15Nicht öffentlich
Summons2026-10-15Öffentlich
Receipt2026-10-12Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-10-12Nicht öffentlich
Statement of rejoinder2026-10-12Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-08-25Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-08-25Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-08-11Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-08-11Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-08-11Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • Defendants 2 and 3 (domiciled in UPCA Member States) can serve as anchors for Defendant 1 (US company) for jurisdiction over UPCA territory under Art. 4 Brussels Ia, without needing to assess plausibility of infringing acts

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 4 Brussels Ia Regulation; Art. 31 UPCA
  • The preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction over Defendant 1 for the UK part of EP2005696 should succeed because claimant did not allege facts showing joint infringement of the UK part by Defendant 1 with the anchor defendants

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • The anchor defendant jurisdiction established via Art. 4 Brussels Ia for Defendants 2 and 3 automatically extends to cover the UK national part of the patent without any further assessment of infringing acts in the UK

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation
  • The fact that all three defendants independently infringe different national parts of the patent by selling/marketing/deploying Infoblox Software is sufficient to establish close connection under Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation
  • Defendant 3 being named on a website operated by an American owner is relevant to establishing jurisdiction for the UK part

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia Regulation