UPC_CFI_755/2024

Method and system for 10BASE-T start-up

Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenMunich LDProvisional measuresCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited sought provisional measures from the Munich Local Division against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation concerning EP 1 770 912 B1 (a 10BASE-T automotive Ethernet start-up method), after Realtek obtained a Taiwanese anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction to block UPC proceedings. The court accepted jurisdiction and issued an anti-anti-suit protective order, finding that foreign anti-suit injunctions violate EU and German rights of access to justice; a subsequent rectification order (R. 353 RoP) corrected factual language about the predecessor's licence agreement.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

UPC has jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) and (c) UPCA to grant anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunctions against foreign anti-suit injunctions
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 32(1)(a)(c) UPCA; Art. 47 EU Charter; Art. 2(1) / 19(4) GG; §823(1) BGB
Hinweis: Munich Local Division accepted that foreign anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunctions threaten access to justice under EU and German constitutional law, giving the UPC jurisdiction to issue protective provisional measures.
Anti-suit injunction obtained by Realtek in Taiwan is contrary to the general European right to access to justice
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 47 EU Charter; German Justizgewährungsanspruch
Hinweis: Court accepted that foreign anti-suit/anti-enforcement prohibitions violate the general European right to access courts and the German constitutional right to court access.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Special circumstances under R. 211.5 RoP can be established by the allegedly long duration of obtaining security
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.5 RoP
Begründung: Special circumstances for purposes of R. 211.5 RoP cannot be founded merely on the purportedly long time to obtain security.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

UPC jurisdiction extends to provisional measures protecting applicants from foreign anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions (Art. 32(1)(a)(c) UPCA)Foreign anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunctions violate Art. 47 EU Charter and German constitutional access-to-justice rights R. 213.1 RoP leaves the court no discretion Special circumstances under R. 211.5 RoP require more than the duration of obtaining security

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.