UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 541/2024

Sep 20, 2024·EP1993363 · COMPOSITION FOR COMBATING ECTOPARASITES AND THEIR OVA

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Mannheim LD
Judges
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Basic materials chemistry
Language
German
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
Mannheim LDLockedLocked
Judge Peter TochtermannLockedLocked
Judge Dirk BöttcherLockedLocked
Judge Mojca MlakarLockedLocked

At the UPC: G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG (1 case)·pharma-aktiva GmbH (1 case)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Mannheim LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2024-12-20
    Public

    Summary: Order from the Mannheim Local Division dated 20 December 2024 granting provisional measures requested by G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG against pharma-aktiva GmbH, ALDI SÜD, ALDI Nord, ALDI SE, and Hofer KG (Austria) for alleged infringement of EP 1 993 363 B1 (a composition for combating ectoparasites). The provisional measures order prohibits defendants from manufacturing, offering, distributing, using, importing or stocking the infringing products in Germany (defendants 1–4) and Austria (defendants 1 and 5). A penalty of EUR 100 per item non-compliance was imposed. The respondents were also ordered to surrender products in their possession. Defendants were ordered to pay a preliminary cost reimbursement of EUR 11,000 jointly. The measures are effective immediately and will lapse if Syngenta does not commence main proceedings within 31 calendar days / 20 working days from 20 December 2024.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Provisional measures under R. 206 RoP
    • Prima facie infringement assessment
    • Urgency for preliminary injunction
    • Penalty payments for non-compliance
Documents
Show all 130 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2025-11-26Not public
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-02-28Not public
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-02-28Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-02-28Not public
Application-RoP2932025-02-27Not public
Application2025-02-27Not public
Anordnung einstweilige Verfuegung2024-12-20Not public
Anordnung einstweilige Verfuegung2024-12-20Public
Anordnung aus technischen Gruenden2024-12-20Public
Referenzdokument mündliche Verhandlung2024-12-19Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C.KG applied to the Mannheim Local Division for provisional measures against pharma-aktiva GmbH and ALDI entities for infringement of EP 1 993 363 B1 (polysiloxane composition for combating ectoparasites and their eggs). The court granted the provisional measures order prohibiting the defendants from making, offering, distributing, using or importing the infringing composition in Germany and Austria, declined to require security because defendants had already voluntarily ceased sales, and imposed a fine of EUR 100 per infringing item.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Infringement of EP 1 993 363 B1 (ectoparasite composition) by defendants' product is established at provisional measures stage

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 206 VerfO

    Note: Defendants did not substantially contest the infringement finding; court found the legal standing of the patent sufficiently secure to grant measures.

  • No security (Sicherheitsleistung) is required because defendants had already ceased distribution and plan to destroy remaining stock

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(5) UPCA; Art. 60(7) UPCA; R. 211.5 VerfO

    Note: Because defendants voluntarily stopped selling and no substantial harm would flow from the order, security would be disproportionate.

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

  • Security (Sicherheitsleistung) should be required before granting provisional measures

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62(5) UPCA; R. 211.5 VerfO

    Reason: Defendants had already ceased distribution; no material harm would result from the order; defendants themselves did not allege impending harm.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Security is not required where defendants have already ceased infringing conduct and face no material harm from the orderProvisional measures may issue on a preliminary assessment of infringement without full determination of meritsWhere defendant does not substantively contest infringement, validity threshold for provisional measures is metProvisional cost reimbursement under UPC provisional measures practice

Browse other cases on this principle.