ACT_37931/2024

Registered patent proprietor benefits from a strong rebuttable presumption of title sufficient for PI proceedings

Note: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that the registered patent proprietor may initially rely on a rebuttable presumption of entitlement in PI proceedings; this presumption can only be rebutted if title is manifestly erroneous.

Defendant's bad faith claim regarding unlawful appropriation of patent cannot succeed where defendant failed to bring a vindication action before national courts in due time

Note: The court rejected defendants' assertion that Valeo had unlawfully appropriated the patent as a basis for weighing interests against the applicant, because the defendants had not brought a timely vindication action.

Patent more likely than not valid for purposes of PI proceedings

Note: The court found that general revocation rate statistics cannot be used to infer invalidity; only the specific patent in suit is relevant, and Valeo's patent EP 3 320 602 was found more likely than not to be valid.

Urgency exists despite some delay; no fixed deadline applies and applicant's overall conduct must be assessed

Note: The court held that there is no fixed deadline for filing a PI application; whether delay is unreasonable depends on all circumstances of the individual case, and Valeo's overall conduct did not demonstrate that enforcement was non-urgent.

Valeo lacks entitlement to bring PI proceedings / patent title is manifestly erroneous

Reason: The rebuttable presumption attached to registered patent proprietorship is a strong presumption; defendants failed to demonstrate that Valeo's title was manifestly erroneous, and they had not brought a vindication action.

General revocation rates of patents indicate the patent is more likely than not invalid

Reason: The court held that general revocation rates are irrelevant; only the validity of the specific patent in suit matters for the PI validity assessment.