UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CoA 12/2025

Jan 8, 2025·EP2145848 · False twist texturing machine

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Handling · Textile and paper machines
Language
Italian
First decided
Jan 16, 2025
Last decision
Dec 9, 2025
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Klaus GrabinskiLocked
Judge Emmanuel GougéLocked
Judge Emanuela GermanoLocked

At the UPC: Bhagat Textile Engineers (6 cases)·Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (13 cases)

This dispute contains 6 other proceedings

UPC APP 3348/2025·UPC CoA 8/2025·UPC CFI 761/2024·UPC CFI 241/2023·UPC APP 21554/2024 and 1 more

2 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

CC 596263/2023·UPC CFI 240/2023

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2025

Decisions
  • 2025-12-09
    Appeal RoP220.1Public

    Summary: Italian-language version of the Court of Appeal decision (same case as UPC_CoA_8/2025) on damages and costs in the Bhagat v Oerlikon appeal (EP 2 145 848). The CoA confirmed Bhagat's negligent infringement, rejected Oerlikon's reputational damage claims, and upheld the 80/20 cost split from the first-instance proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Damages assessment (Art. 68 UPCA)
    • Knowledge/negligence of infringer
    • Moral/reputational prejudice
    • Cost allocation
  • 2025-01-16
    Application RoP 223Public

    Summary: The Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé) rejected Bhagat Textile Engineers' application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) of the Milan Local Division's infringement judgment of 4 November 2024 concerning EP 2 145 848. The Milan LD had found Bhagat liable for infringement, issued an injunction for Italy and Germany, imposed a penalty payment of EUR 12,000, and ordered provisional damages of EUR 15,000. Bhagat failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, having only vaguely claimed parallel invalidity proceedings and 'considerable doubts' about validity without substantiation.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Suspensive effect of appeal (R. 223 RoP)
    • Exceptional circumstances threshold for suspensive effect
    • Infringement judgment with injunction and provisional damages
    • Parallel invalidity proceedings as basis for suspensive effect
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2025-12-09Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-01-16Not public
Order2025-01-16Public
Panel-Appointment2025-01-14Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-01-09Not public
Receipt2025-01-09Not public
2025.01.08 Application for Suspensive Effect - EN ORIGINAL - SIGNED2025-01-08Not public
2025.01.08 Application for Suspensive Effect - EN ORIGINAL - SIGNED2025-01-08Not public