UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 59/2025

23. Jan. 2025·EP2903267 +1 more: IMAGE ENCODING METHOD, IMAGE DECODING METHOD, IMAGE ENCODING DEVICE, IMAGE DECODING DEVICE, AND IMAGE ENCODING/DECODING DEVICE

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Henke (Bardehle Pagenberg); Müller (Bardehle Pagenberg); Mamine (Bardehle Pagenberg)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Kramer (Vossius & Partner)
Division
Munich LD
Technology
Telecommunications
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
19. Mai 2025
Entscheidungen
  • 2025-05-19
    PI abgelehntEinstweilige VerfügungApplication for provisional measures

    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:Anti-anti-suit / anti-anti-enforcement injunctionMootness of PI application after cease-and-desist undertakingPrior warning requirement (Abmahnung)Cost allocation under R. 360 RoP
  • Nur Kosten

    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:Anti-anti-suit injunction mootnessCosts after voluntary withdrawal by opponentPrior notice requirement for AASI
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-09-15Nicht öffentlich
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-09-15Nicht öffentlich
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-09-15Nicht öffentlich
Application-RoP2932025-09-11Nicht öffentlich
Antrag auf Änderung2025-09-11Nicht öffentlich
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2025-05-26Nicht öffentlich
2025-05-19 - Anordnung gem. R. 360 VerfO - anonymised2025-05-23Nicht öffentlich
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-05-19Nicht öffentlich
2025-05-19 - Anordnung gem R.360 VerfO2025-05-19Nicht öffentlich
2025-05-19 - Anordnung gem R.360 VerfO2025-05-19Öffentlich
2025-05-19 - Anordnung gem R.360 VerfO2025-05-19Nicht öffentlich
Anlage VP 72025-05-13Nicht öffentlich
Stellungnahme2025-05-13Nicht öffentlich
2025-04-28 - Anordnung - Stellungnahmefrist AG2025-04-28Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit BP 7 - Cease and Desist Declaration Roku to STP_signed A171035EVU01.pdf2025-04-16Nicht öffentlich
2025-04-16 Brief of SPT - Response to Examination Request A171035EVU01 - signed.pdf2025-04-16Nicht öffentlich
2025-04-16 Brief of SPT - Response to Examination Request A171035EVU01 - signed.pdf2025-04-16Nicht öffentlich
2025-04-02 Anordnung Stellungnahmefrist ASt2025-04-02Nicht öffentlich
Panel-Appointment2025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
Application-For-Measures-Receipt2025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
R.262.2 Antrag2025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
Application-For-Measures-Acknowledgement2025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
VP 52025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
VP 22025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
VP 52025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
Antrag auf Ueberpruefung2025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
VP 22025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
VP 62025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
VP 12025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
VP 32025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
VP 12025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
Antrag auf Ueberpruefung2025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
VP 32025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
VP 62025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
VP 42025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
VP 42025-04-01Nicht öffentlich
Acknowledgement of access to case2025-03-31Nicht öffentlich
Notice of Provisional measures and instructions for access to proceedings2025-01-28Nicht öffentlich
Measures_DecisionOutcome_Notification.pdf2025-01-28Nicht öffentlich
2025-01-28 Anordnung - einstweilige Maßnahmen - AASI2025-01-28Öffentlich
Panel-Appointment2025-01-27Nicht öffentlich
Panel-Appointment2025-01-24Nicht öffentlich
Application-For-Measures-Receipt2025-01-24Nicht öffentlich
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-01-24Nicht öffentlich
Application-For-Measures-Acknowledgement2025-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Anlage BP 3 - 2024-12-31 US Klage.pdf2025-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Anlage BP 1a - Statement of claim - SPT - redacted.pdf2025-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Anlage BP 2a Klageerwiderung geschwaerzt Roku - SPT.pdf2025-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Anlage BP 1b - Statement of Claim - SPT- redacted.pdf2025-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Anlage BP 5 - Witness Statement J Casino.pdf2025-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Anlage BP 6 Witness Statement - G Beeney.pdf2025-01-23Nicht öffentlich
2025-01-23_Preliminary Injunction Request - SPT _A171035EVU01 - signed.pdf2025-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Anlage BP 4b Registerauszug EP 463.pdf2025-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Anlage BP 4a Registerauszug EP 267.pdf2025-01-23Nicht öffentlich
A171035EVU01_Proof_of_Payment.pdf2025-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Anlage BP 2a Klageerwiderung geschwaerzt Roku - SPT.pdf2025-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

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.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • 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 RoP

    Hinweis: 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 RoP

    Hinweis: 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.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • 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).