UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 998/2025

Oct 1, 2025·EP3777595 · 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
Jul 15, 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 996/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-07-15
    InfringementPublic

    Summary: The Judge-Rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order resolving a dispute over the electronic signature requirement for the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence, Application to Amend the Patent, and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court held that the Claimant's failure to electronically sign the submissions filed on 4 May 2026 was excusable given the absence of Court of Appeal guidance at that time, retroactively extended the filing deadline to 13 July 2026 (when signed versions were submitted), and preserved 4 May 2026 as the original filing date.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Electronic signature requirement under R. 4.1 RoP
    • Power to disregard submissions under R. 9.2 RoP
    • Retroactive extension of procedural time limit under R. 9.3(a) RoP
    • Excusable error and principles of fairness and equity in procedural compliance
    • Effect of subsequent CoA guidance (SharkNinja v. SEB, UPC_CoA_61/2026) on earlier non-compliant filings
  • 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 — based primarily on the financial difficulties of BOA's holding company CODI — were insufficient, since only BOA's own financial situation is relevant, and BOA was found to have sufficient means to cover any future costs order.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Security for costs under R. 158 RoP / Art. 69(4) UPCA
    • Whether financial situation of holding company (CODI) is relevant to assessing claimant's means
    • Threshold for ordering security: sufficient means to meet a future costs order
Documents
Show all 142 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-09-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-07Not public
Further pleadings2026-09-07Not public
Receipt2026-09-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-07Not public
Further pleadings2026-09-07Not public
Order2026-07-20Not public
Order2026-07-20Public
Publication of order2026-07-16Not public
Order2026-07-15Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Only BOA's own financial situation (not that of its holding company CODI) is relevant when assessing sufficient means under Art. 69(4) UPCA

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

  • BOA's latest financial analysis (17 March 2026, Q4 2025) shows CODI earned USD 64.3 million, demonstrating BOA has sufficient means

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

  • CODI's stock price decline of 62% in 2025 and negative growth estimates for 2026 demonstrate that BOA lacks sufficient means to meet a future costs order

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 158 RoP; Art. 69(4) UPCA