UPC APP 58871/2024
- Case details
- StatusClaim dismissedActionPreliminary objectionCategoryPreliminary objection
- Parties
- Respondents
- Easee B.V.Operating co.
- Yves PrevooOther / unknown
- Easee Holding B.V.Operating co.
Representatives- Wim Maas-Taylor Wessing
- Division
- Hamburg LD
- Judges
- —
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Dec 18, 2024
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Hamburg LD | Locked |
At the UPC: Visibly Inc. (9 cases)·Easee B.V. (9 cases)
- 2024-12-18Preliminary objectionPublic
Summary: Procedural order of the Hamburg Local Division rejecting a preliminary objection (Rule 19 RoP) filed by defendants Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo (director), and Easee Holding B.V. against Visibly Inc.'s patent infringement action. The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, holding: (1) an alleged patent infringement constitutes a tort under Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast Regulation, giving the UPC jurisdiction over director liability claims as well; (2) the question whether a director can be held personally liable is a matter of the merits, not of jurisdiction. The court confirmed the Hamburg Local Division's competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on the place where the alleged infringement may occur (Germany). Leave to appeal was granted.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Preliminary objection on jurisdiction (Rule 19 RoP)
- UPC jurisdiction over director liability claims in patent infringement
- Art. 7(2) Brussels I recast Regulation: patent infringement as tort
- Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA: competence based on place of infringement
- Personal director liability: jurisdictional vs. merits question
- B1BDB3686E77CD8F1FFAF3EFE23EE775_en.pdf2024-12-18EN