UPC CFI 347/2024

Jul 1, 2024·EP3320602 · ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE PROVIDED WITH A RESERVOIR OF LUBRICANT FOR LUBRICATING A ROLLING BEARING AND FOR COOLING THE MACHINE

Action number: ACT 37931/2024

Case details: Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties: Claimants
Valeo ElectrificationOperating co.
Representatives
Felix Roediger-Bird & Bird LLP
Jonas Smeets-Bird & Bird LLP
Fabian Saupe-Bird & Bird LLP
Nicolas Cardonsupporting
Amandine Ricardsupporting
Florian Saadisupporting
Respondents
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KGOperating co.
Magna PT s.r.o.Operating co.
Magna International France, SARLOperating co.
Representatives
Klaus Haft-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
Klaus
Sabine Agé-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
Sebastian Kratzer-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
Wolfgang Kellentersupporting-Hengeler Mueller
Jan Ackermannsupporting-Cohausz & Florack
Felipe von Heeremansupporting-Cohausz & Florack
Margarete Rittstiegsupporting-Cohausz & Florack
Division: Dusseldorf LD
Judges: Ronny Thomas
Mélanie Bessaud
Berenice Thom
Alessandro Sanchini
Technology: Electrical engineering
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
Language: English
First decided: Aug 21, 2024
Last decision: Oct 31, 2024

How this compares

The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.

	Preliminary injunction granted	Median days to first decision
All UPC	54% (38/70)	124
Dusseldorf LD	Locked	Locked
Judge Ronny Thomas	Locked	Locked
Judge Mélanie Bessaud	Locked	Locked
Judge Berenice Thom	Locked	Locked
Judge Alessandro Sanchini	Locked	Locked

At the UPC: Valeo Group (34 cases)·Magna Group (21 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in

Related cases

All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 9 other proceedings

UPC CoA 719/2024·UPC CoA 689/2024·UPC CoA 691/2024·UPC CFI 657/2024·UPC CFI 459/2024 and 4 more

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 580/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions

2024-10-31
Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: Order from the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_347/2024) granting Valeo Electrification's application for provisional measures against Magna PT entities concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from manufacturing, offering, marketing, using or importing the infringing automotive electrification products. Penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per violation were ordered. The injunction was conditional on Valeo providing security of EUR 2,500,000. The Court addressed issues of patent proprietorship (rebuttable presumption), urgency, and validity, finding the patent more likely than not valid.
Show the legal issues (6)
- Preliminary injunction (Art. 62 UPCA)
- Rebuttable presumption of patent proprietorship (R. 8.5(c) RoP)
- Good faith and abuse of title
- Urgency (R. 211.4 RoP)
- Balance of interests
- Validity assessment in PI proceedings
2024-09-25
Public
Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the Magna v. Valeo proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602, addressing the rules on evidence applicable in provisional measures (preliminary injunction) proceedings under R. 9 RoP and R. 210.2 RoP, in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 8 October 2024.
Show the legal issues (2)
- Rules on evidence in preliminary injunction proceedings (R. 9 RoP, R. 210.2 RoP)
- Preparation for oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings
2024-08-21
Application RoP262APublic
Summary: Düsseldorf Local Division issued a confidentiality order under R.262A RoP restricting access to confidential information submitted by Magna entities (defendants) in their Statement of defence and Rejoinder, relating to supply chain and trade secrets. Access was limited to specific named representatives of Valeo.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Confidentiality order under R.262A RoP
- Protection of trade secrets in proceedings
- Access restrictions to confidential information

Documents

Show all 518 documents

Document title	Date	Public
Receipt	2026-04-30	Not public
Cover sheet	2026-04-30	Not public
Exhibit Defendant	2026-04-30	Not public
Exhibit Defendant	2026-04-30	Not public
Application document Defendant	2026-04-30	Not public
Outcome of the Order	2025-07-22	Not public
Confirmation of appointment	2025-07-22	Public
Comments of Defendants	2025-01-07	Not public
Receipt	2024-12-31	Not public
Application to withdraw	2024-12-31	Not public

Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.

Plain-English summary

Valeo Electrification applied for provisional measures before the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna PT entities concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, a patent for a rotary electric machine with a lubricant reservoir for rolling bearings used in automotive electrification. The court granted a preliminary injunction, finding the patent more likely than not valid, urgency established despite some delay, and the registered proprietorship presumption satisfied, ordering cessation of the allegedly infringing acts subject to EUR 2,500,000 security to be provided by Valeo.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

Registered patent proprietor benefits from a strong rebuttable presumption of title sufficient for PI proceedings
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 8.5(c) RoP
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
Claimant
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
Claimant
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
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP
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.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Valeo lacks entitlement to bring PI proceedings / patent title is manifestly erroneous
RespondentLegal basis: R. 8.5(c) RoP
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
Respondent
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.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

rebuttable presumption of patent proprietorship under R. 8.5(c) RoP urgency for PI: no fixed deadline, assessed on totality of applicant's conduct general patent revocation rates irrelevant to individual patent validity assessment bad faith claim requires prior vindication action by defendant weighing of interests in PI proceedings

Browse other cases on this principle.