UPC CFI 998/2025

Vor dem UPC: Boa Technology Inc. (3 Verfahren)·FLA Europe NV (2 Verfahren)

• 2026-07-15
  InfringementÖffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The Judge-Rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order resolving a dispute over the electronic signature requirement for the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence, Application to Amend the Patent, and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court held that the Claimant's failure to electronically sign the submissions filed on 4 May 2026 was excusable given the absence of Court of Appeal guidance at that time, retroactively extended the filing deadline to 13 July 2026 (when signed versions were submitted), and preserved 4 May 2026 as the original filing date.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)

  • Electronic signature requirement under R. 4.1 RoP
  • Power to disregard submissions under R. 9.2 RoP
  • Retroactive extension of procedural time limit under R. 9.3(a) RoP
  • Excusable error and principles of fairness and equity in procedural compliance
  • Effect of subsequent CoA guidance (SharkNinja v. SEB, UPC_CoA_61/2026) on earlier non-compliant filings
• 2026-06-01
  Infringement 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 — based primarily on the financial difficulties of BOA's holding company CODI — were insufficient, since only BOA's own financial situation is relevant, and BOA was found to have sufficient means to cover any future costs order.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)

  • Security for costs under R. 158 RoP / Art. 69(4) UPCA
  • Whether financial situation of holding company (CODI) is relevant to assessing claimant's means
  • Threshold for ordering security: sufficient means to meet a future costs order