UPC CFI 368/2024
3. Juli 2024·EP3320604 · ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE EQUIPPED WITH A MEANS OF ADJUSTING THE ANGULAR POSITION OF THE SHAFT
- 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
- Pierre Prigentmitwirkend
Beklagte- Magna PT B.V. & Co. KGUnternehmen
- Magna PT s.r.o.Unternehmen
- Magna International France, SARLUnternehmen
Vertreter- Klaus Haft-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- 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
| 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 Berenice Thom | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Mélanie Bessaud | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Alessandro Sanchini | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Valeo Group (34 Verfahren)·Magna Group (21 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 7 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 720/2024·UPC CoA 690/2024·UPC CoA 692/2024·UPC CFI 658/2024·UPC CFI 460/2024 und 2 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
- 2024-11-20
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on Valeo Electrification's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the preliminary injunction order of 31 October 2024 against Magna PT entities concerning EP 3 320 604 B1. The rectification related to the product scope and spare-parts exception included in the order. The court issued a corrected operative part clarifying the terms of the injunction.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Rectification of order (R. 353 RoP)
- Scope of preliminary injunction
- Spare parts exception
- 2024-10-31Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Valeo Electrification a preliminary injunction against Magna PT entities prohibiting them from offering, placing on the market, using, importing or storing certain electric motor generators (challenged embodiment I) and the 7HDT400 gearbox assembled with those generators (challenged embodiment II) in Germany and France, concerning EP 3 320 604 B1. A temporary exception was granted for BMW 2 Series Active Tourer and Mini Countryman, conditional on defendants providing security of EUR 500,000 by 21 November 2024. Recurring penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per violation were imposed. Defendants were ordered to pay EUR 14,700 provisionally in costs. The injunction was made enforceable upon provision by the applicant of a EUR 2,500,000 bank guarantee.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (7)
- Application for provisional measures (R. 206 RoP)
- Patent proprietorship / rebuttable presumption (R. 8.5(c) RoP)
- Good faith and entitlement
- Urgency and delay (R. 211.4 RoP)
- Weighing of interests
- Penalty payments and security
- Exceptional damage
- 2024-09-02
Zusammenfassung: President of the UPC Court of First Instance dismissed Magna entities' application for review of the allocation of a technically qualified judge. The Court held that parties have no right to request a specific technical background for a technically qualified judge and that partiality is the only permissible objection to a judge's participation.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Allocation of technically qualified judge
- Party objections to judicial allocation
- Grounds for challenging judge participation (Art. 7.4 UPCA)
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Confirmation of appointment | 2025-07-22 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-02-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-02-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-02-05 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Confidentiality Request | 2025-02-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| HRM 02a | 2025-02-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| HRM 22a-71 | 2025-02-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| HRM 23 | 2025-02-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| HRM 22a-65 | 2025-02-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
Valeo Electrification (France) obtained a preliminary injunction against Magna PT entities (Germany/Slovakia/France) prohibiting sale and use of certain electric motor generators and the 7HDT400 gearbox incorporating them in Germany and France, based on EP 3 320 604 B1 relating to a rotary electric machine with adjustable shaft angular position. The court rejected Magna's procedural challenges including a request to replace the technically qualified judge and a rectification application aimed at expanding a BMW model exception in the injunction order. The PI was conditioned on Valeo providing a EUR 2.5 million bank guarantee.
Valeo is entitled to sue as registered patent proprietor under rebuttable presumption (R. 8.5(c) RoP)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 8.5(c) RoP; Art. 47 UPCAHinweis: Court held that the registered proprietor enjoys a strong presumption of entitlement which can only be rebutted in PI proceedings if title is manifestly erroneous.
Defendants' failure to bring a vindication action in due time bars them from relying on bad-faith of applicant in weighing of interests
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211 RoP; general principles of proportionalityHinweis: Magna claimed Valeo had unlawfully appropriated the patent; court rejected this as a factor in the balance of interests because no vindication action was timely brought before national courts.
Urgency is assessed holistically from the applicant's overall conduct, not by a fixed deadline
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoPHinweis: Court confirmed there is no rigid deadline for filing a PI application; the question is whether the applicant's conduct as a whole shows enforcement is not urgent.
Patent validity likelihood must be assessed on the specific patent in suit, not general revocation statistics
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCAHinweis: Court held that general revocation rate data is irrelevant; only the specific patent's strength matters.
Applicant acted in bad faith by unlawfully appropriating the patent, warranting denial of PI
BeklagterBegründung: Defendants failed to bring a vindication action before national courts in due time, and therefore cannot rely on the alleged bad faith in the weighing of interests.
Application for rectification: '2 Series Gran Coupé' model omitted from BMW exception list by obvious slip
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 353 RoPBegründung: Model was not introduced into proceedings before the rectification application and was never mentioned at the oral hearing, so its absence from the order cannot constitute an obvious slip under R. 353 RoP.
Review of allocation of technically qualified judge to obtain one with mechanical engineering expertise
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 7.4 UPCA; R. 185.2 RoPBegründung: Parties have no right to request a specific technical background for a technically qualified judge; the only permissible ground for objection to a judge is partiality under Art. 7.4 UPCA.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.