UPC CFI 996/2025
1. Okt. 2025·EP3003087 · INTEGRATED CLOSURE DEVICE COMPONENTS AND METHODS
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusWritten PhaseVerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Boa Technology Inc.Unternehmen
Beklagte- FLA Europe NVUnternehmen
- Shinkyung Inc.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Richard Schloetter-Heumann Intellectual Property Law
- Martin Köhler-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Felix Daulmitwirkend-HGF Europe LLP
- Francois Herpemitwirkend-Cornet Vincent Ségurel
- Mirko Weinertmitwirkend-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Joscha Torweihemitwirkend-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Simon Heilmannmitwirkend-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
- Andreas Pfundmitwirkend-Dreiss Patentanwälte
- Johannes Maurermitwirkend-Dreiss Patentanwälte
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- Other fieldsOther consumer goods
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 1. Juni 2026
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 17. Aug. 2026
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Berenice Thom | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Samuel Granata | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ingo Rinken | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Giorgio Checcacci | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Boa Technology Inc. (3 Verfahren)·FLA Europe NV (2 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 1 weitere Verfahren
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2025
- 2026-08-17InfringementÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Procedural order under R. 30.2 RoP staying assessment of the claimant's application to amend the patent, to be decided together with the main proceedings, inviting the claimant to plead on the consequences of the Court of Appeal's FujiFilm/Kodak decision of 13 July 2026, and extending the defendants' rejoinder deadline to 28 September 2026.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- application to amend the patent (R. 30 RoP)
- stay of assessment
- auxiliary requests
- 2026-07-15InfringementÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order retroactively extending the claimant's deadline to submit its Reply to the Statement of Defence, Application to Amend the Patent, and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation to 13 July 2026 (when electronically signed versions were filed), while preserving the original filing date of 4 May 2026. Defendant 2's objection that the unsigned submissions should be disregarded was rejected on grounds of excusable error and fairness.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Electronic signature requirement for written submissions (R. 4.1 RoP)
- Court's power to disregard submissions not complying with formal requirements (R. 9.2 RoP)
- Retroactive time extension for filing signed submissions (R. 9.3(a) RoP)
- Excusable error / fairness in procedural compliance
- 2026-06-01Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Judge-Rapporteur dismissed Defendant 2 (Shinkyung Inc.)'s application for security for costs under R.158 RoP. The court found that Shinkyung's arguments, which focused on the financial situation of BOA's holding company CODI rather than BOA itself, were insufficient to establish that BOA lacked the means to meet a future costs order. The security for costs request of EUR 200,000 was therefore denied in its entirety.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Security for costs under R.158 RoP / Art. 69(4) UPCA
- Whether financial condition of a holding company (CODI) is relevant to assessing claimant's (BOA's) financial means
- Threshold for establishing insufficient means to meet a costs order
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-09-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-09-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Further pleadings | 2026-09-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-09-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-09-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Further pleadings | 2026-09-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-09-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-09-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Further pleadings | 2026-09-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-09-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
Only the financial situation of BOA itself should be considered, not that of its holding company CODI, which is not a party to the proceedings
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(4) UPCA; UPC CoA Order of 29 November 2024, UPC_CFI_548/2024 (Aarke v. Sodastream) §21BOA demonstrated financial stability by reference to the financial analysis of 17 March 2026 showing CODI earned USD 64.3 million in Q4 2025
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R.158 RoP
BOA's holding company CODI experienced a -62% stock price fall in 2025 and negative growth estimates for 2026, indicating BOA would be unable to meet a costs order
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.158.1 RoP; Art. 82(2) UPCA