UPC_CFI_368/2024

Valeo is entitled to sue as registered patent proprietor under rebuttable presumption (R. 8.5(c) RoP)

Hinweis: 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

Hinweis: 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

Hinweis: 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

Hinweis: 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

Begründung: 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

Begründung: 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

Begründung: 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.