UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 368/2024

Jul 3, 2024·EP3320604 · ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE EQUIPPED WITH A MEANS OF ADJUSTING THE ANGULAR POSITION OF THE SHAFT

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
Language
English
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 grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Mélanie BessaudLockedLocked
Judge Alessandro SanchiniLockedLocked

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 7 other proceedings

UPC CoA 720/2024·UPC CoA 690/2024·UPC CoA 692/2024·UPC CFI 658/2024·UPC CFI 460/2024 and 2 more

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 581/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2024-11-20
    Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on Valeo Electrification's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the preliminary injunction order of 31 October 2024 against Magna PT entities concerning EP 3 320 604 B1. The rectification related to the product scope and spare-parts exception included in the order. The court issued a corrected operative part clarifying the terms of the injunction.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Rectification of order (R. 353 RoP)
    • Scope of preliminary injunction
    • Spare parts exception
  • 2024-10-31
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Valeo Electrification a preliminary injunction against Magna PT entities prohibiting them from offering, placing on the market, using, importing or storing certain electric motor generators (challenged embodiment I) and the 7HDT400 gearbox assembled with those generators (challenged embodiment II) in Germany and France, concerning EP 3 320 604 B1. A temporary exception was granted for BMW 2 Series Active Tourer and Mini Countryman, conditional on defendants providing security of EUR 500,000 by 21 November 2024. Recurring penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per violation were imposed. Defendants were ordered to pay EUR 14,700 provisionally in costs. The injunction was made enforceable upon provision by the applicant of a EUR 2,500,000 bank guarantee.

    Show the legal issues (7)
    • Application for provisional measures (R. 206 RoP)
    • Patent proprietorship / rebuttable presumption (R. 8.5(c) RoP)
    • Good faith and entitlement
    • Urgency and delay (R. 211.4 RoP)
    • Weighing of interests
    • Penalty payments and security
    • Exceptional damage
  • 2024-09-02
    Public

    Summary: President of the UPC Court of First Instance dismissed Magna entities' application for review of the allocation of a technically qualified judge. The Court held that parties have no right to request a specific technical background for a technically qualified judge and that partiality is the only permissible objection to a judge's participation.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Allocation of technically qualified judge
    • Party objections to judicial allocation
    • Grounds for challenging judge participation (Art. 7.4 UPCA)
Documents
Show all 831 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Outcome of the Order2025-07-22Not public
Confirmation of appointment2025-07-22Public
Receipt2025-02-05Not public
Receipt2025-02-05Not public
Receipt2025-02-05Not public
Confidentiality Request2025-02-04Not public
HRM 02a2025-02-04Not public
HRM 22a-712025-02-04Not public
HRM 232025-02-04Not public
HRM 22a-652025-02-04Not public
Plain-English summary

Valeo Electrification (France) obtained a preliminary injunction against Magna PT entities (Germany/Slovakia/France) prohibiting sale and use of certain electric motor generators and the 7HDT400 gearbox incorporating them in Germany and France, based on EP 3 320 604 B1 relating to a rotary electric machine with adjustable shaft angular position. The court rejected Magna's procedural challenges including a request to replace the technically qualified judge and a rectification application aimed at expanding a BMW model exception in the injunction order. The PI was conditioned on Valeo providing a EUR 2.5 million bank guarantee.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Valeo is entitled to sue as registered patent proprietor under rebuttable presumption (R. 8.5(c) RoP)

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 8.5(c) RoP; Art. 47 UPCA

    Note: Court held that the registered proprietor enjoys a strong presumption of entitlement which can only be rebutted in PI proceedings if title is manifestly erroneous.

  • Defendants' failure to bring a vindication action in due time bars them from relying on bad-faith of applicant in weighing of interests

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211 RoP; general principles of proportionality

    Note: Magna claimed Valeo had unlawfully appropriated the patent; court rejected this as a factor in the balance of interests because no vindication action was timely brought before national courts.

  • Urgency is assessed holistically from the applicant's overall conduct, not by a fixed deadline

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP

    Note: Court confirmed there is no rigid deadline for filing a PI application; the question is whether the applicant's conduct as a whole shows enforcement is not urgent.

  • Patent validity likelihood must be assessed on the specific patent in suit, not general revocation statistics

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA

    Note: Court held that general revocation rate data is irrelevant; only the specific patent's strength matters.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Applicant acted in bad faith by unlawfully appropriating the patent, warranting denial of PI

    Respondent

    Reason: Defendants failed to bring a vindication action before national courts in due time, and therefore cannot rely on the alleged bad faith in the weighing of interests.

  • Application for rectification: '2 Series Gran Coupé' model omitted from BMW exception list by obvious slip

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 353 RoP

    Reason: Model was not introduced into proceedings before the rectification application and was never mentioned at the oral hearing, so its absence from the order cannot constitute an obvious slip under R. 353 RoP.

  • Review of allocation of technically qualified judge to obtain one with mechanical engineering expertise

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 7.4 UPCA; R. 185.2 RoP

    Reason: Parties have no right to request a specific technical background for a technically qualified judge; the only permissible ground for objection to a judge is partiality under Art. 7.4 UPCA.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Registered patent proprietor holds strong rebuttable presumption of entitlement in PI proceedingsUrgency in PI proceedings assessed by totality of applicant conduct, not fixed deadlineValidity likelihood assessed on the specific patent only, not general revocation statisticsFailure to bring timely vindication action bars reliance on patentee bad faith in balance of interestsParties have no right to determine technical background of technically qualified judge; partiality is only valid objectionR. 353 RoP rectification limited to clerical mistakes and obvious slips; cannot correct matters not raised at hearing

Browse other cases on this principle.