UPC CFI 59/2025
23. Jan. 2025·EP2903267 SEP +1 more · IMAGE ENCODING METHOD, IMAGE DECODING METHOD, IMAGE ENCODING DEVICE, IMAGE DECODING DEVICE, AND IMAGE ENCODING/DECODING DEVICE
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter
- Volkmar Henke-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Müller-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Mamine-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringAudio-visual technology
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 19. Mai 2025
| Einstweilige Verfügung erlassen | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ulrike Voß | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Daniel Voss | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Edger Brinkman | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Sun Patent Trust (31 Verfahren)·Roku, Inc. (16 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 6 weitere Verfahren
UPC CFI 708/2024·UPC CFI 713/2024·UPC CFI 339/2024·UPC CFI 254/2024·UPC APP 47531/2024 und 1 weitere
2 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2025-05-19Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division found the application for provisional measures by Sun Patent Trust (anti-anti-suit injunction / anti-anti-enforcement injunction against Roku) moot because Roku had already issued a cease-and-desist undertaking after the prior interim order of 28 January 2025; the application was rejected but costs were borne by Roku since it had given cause for the proceedings.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Anti-anti-suit / anti-anti-enforcement injunction
- Mootness of PI application after cease-and-desist undertaking
- Prior warning requirement (Abmahnung)
- Cost allocation under R. 360 RoP
- —
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division ruled that the anti-anti-suit injunction application by Dolby International against Roku became moot after Roku voluntarily withdrew its US proceedings, declaring the application for provisional measures groundless and the earlier interim order void, with costs awarded against Roku.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Anti-anti-suit injunction mootness
- Costs after voluntary withdrawal by opponent
- Prior notice requirement for AASI
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Mitteilung | 2026-08-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative | 2025-09-15 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293-Receipt | 2025-09-15 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome | 2025-09-15 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application-RoP293 | 2025-09-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Antrag auf Änderung | 2025-09-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated | 2025-05-26 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 2025-05-19 - Anordnung gem. R. 360 VerfO - anonymised | 2025-05-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-05-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 2025-05-19 - Anordnung gem R.360 VerfO | 2025-05-19 | Nicht öffentlich |
Sun Patent Trust (applicant for AASI/AAEI) obtained a costs order against Roku Inc. before the Munich Local Division, even though the substantive anti-anti-suit/anti-anti-enforcement injunction application had become moot after Roku issued a cease-and-desist undertaking following the prior interim order of January 2025. The Court held that a prior warning was unnecessary and impracticable before filing an AASI/AAEI where the defendant had already initiated US court proceedings seeking to restrain UPC enforcement, and that costs are assessed from the objective viewpoint of the applicant at the time of filing.
Prior warning (Abmahnung) is not a prerequisite for an anti-anti-suit/anti-anti-enforcement injunction application where the defendant had already initiated foreign anti-suit/anti-enforcement proceedings
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: CoA order of 24 October 2024 (CoA_2-2024, Edwards/Meril); R. 206 RoPHinweis: Court held that where defendant has already commenced anti-suit/AEI proceedings before a foreign court, a prior warning is unnecessary because the defendant's conduct makes clear it would not comply voluntarily.
Defendant bears costs despite mootness where defendant gave cause for proceedings by initiating anti-suit action before US courts
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 360 RoPHinweis: Court assessed costs from objective viewpoint of applicant at time of filing: applicant was entitled to conclude it could not obtain its rights without judicial assistance, given defendant's US court filings seeking an ASI/AEI.
Applicant should bear its own costs because it failed to issue a prior warning before filing the anti-anti-suit/anti-anti-enforcement injunction
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: CoA order of 24 October 2024 (CoA_2-2024, Edwards/Meril)Begründung: Prior warning was not required or practicable: (1) defendant had already begun implementing its intent to obtain an ASI/AEI in the US; (2) issuing a warning risked defendant accelerating the US proceedings or obtaining an emergency injunction before the UPC could act, potentially destroying applicant's rights; (3) on this basis, prior warning was deemed untunlich (impracticable/inadvisable).
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.