UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 996/2025

Oct 1, 2025·EP3003087 · INTEGRATED CLOSURE DEVICE COMPONENTS AND METHODS

Follow
Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Other fields
    Other consumer goods
Language
English
First decided
Jun 1, 2026
Last decision
Aug 17, 2026
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.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Samuel GranataLockedLocked
Judge Ingo RinkenLockedLocked
Judge Giorgio CheccacciLockedLocked

At the UPC: Boa Technology Inc. (3 cases)·FLA Europe NV (2 cases)

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

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 998/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-08-17
    InfringementPublic

    Summary: Procedural order under R. 30.2 RoP staying assessment of the claimant's application to amend the patent, to be decided together with the main proceedings, inviting the claimant to plead on the consequences of the Court of Appeal's FujiFilm/Kodak decision of 13 July 2026, and extending the defendants' rejoinder deadline to 28 September 2026.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • application to amend the patent (R. 30 RoP)
    • stay of assessment
    • auxiliary requests
  • 2026-07-15
    InfringementPublic

    Summary: The judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order retroactively extending the claimant's deadline to submit its Reply to the Statement of Defence, Application to Amend the Patent, and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation to 13 July 2026 (when electronically signed versions were filed), while preserving the original filing date of 4 May 2026. Defendant 2's objection that the unsigned submissions should be disregarded was rejected on grounds of excusable error and fairness.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Electronic signature requirement for written submissions (R. 4.1 RoP)
    • Court's power to disregard submissions not complying with formal requirements (R. 9.2 RoP)
    • Retroactive time extension for filing signed submissions (R. 9.3(a) RoP)
    • Excusable error / fairness in procedural compliance
  • 2026-06-01
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Judge-Rapporteur dismissed Defendant 2 (Shinkyung Inc.)'s application for security for costs under R.158 RoP. The court found that Shinkyung's arguments, which focused on the financial situation of BOA's holding company CODI rather than BOA itself, were insufficient to establish that BOA lacked the means to meet a future costs order. The security for costs request of EUR 200,000 was therefore denied in its entirety.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Security for costs under R.158 RoP / Art. 69(4) UPCA
    • Whether financial condition of a holding company (CODI) is relevant to assessing claimant's (BOA's) financial means
    • Threshold for establishing insufficient means to meet a costs order
Documents
Show all 161 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-09-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-28Not public
Further pleadings2026-09-28Not public
Receipt2026-09-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-28Not public
Further pleadings2026-09-28Not public
Receipt2026-09-01Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-01Not public
Further pleadings2026-09-01Not public
Receipt2026-09-01Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Only the financial situation of BOA itself should be considered, not that of its holding company CODI, which is not a party to the proceedings

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA; UPC CoA Order of 29 November 2024, UPC_CFI_548/2024 (Aarke v. Sodastream) §21

  • BOA demonstrated financial stability by reference to the financial analysis of 17 March 2026 showing CODI earned USD 64.3 million in Q4 2025

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R.158 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • BOA's holding company CODI experienced a -62% stock price fall in 2025 and negative growth estimates for 2026, indicating BOA would be unable to meet a costs order

    RespondentLegal basis: R.158.1 RoP; Art. 82(2) UPCA