UPC CoA 12/2025
Jan 8, 2025·EP2145848 +1 more: False twist texturing machine
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionGenericCategoryMain Appeal
- Parties
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technology
- Packaging & Conveying
- Language
- Italian
- First decided
- Jan 16, 2025
- Last decision
- Dec 9, 2025
- 2025-12-09OtherAppeal RoP220.1
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.
Legal issues:Damages assessment (Art. 68 UPCA)Knowledge/negligence of infringerMoral/reputational prejudiceCost allocationDamages: Liability declared, amount deferred · Basis: lost_profits - 2025-01-16Application Rop 223
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.
Legal issues:Suspensive effect of appeal (R. 223 RoP)Exceptional circumstances threshold for suspensive effectInfringement judgment with injunction and provisional damagesParallel invalidity proceedings as basis for suspensive effect - 2025-01-16Application Rop 223
Italian-language version of the Court of Appeal order (judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé) rejecting Bhagat Textile Engineers' application for suspensive effect of the Milan Local Division's infringement judgment of 4 November 2024 (EP 2 145 848). Identical substance to the English version: Bhagat failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect.
Legal issues:Suspensive effect of appeal (R. 223 RoP)Exceptional circumstances threshold for suspensive effectInfringement judgment with injunction and provisional damagesParallel invalidity proceedings
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| action.phaseChange.caseClose | 2025-12-09 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-01-16 | Not public |
| Order | 2025-01-16 | Public |
| Panel-Appointment | 2025-01-14 | Not public |
| Panel-Appointment | 2025-01-09 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-01-09 | Not public |
| 2025.01.08 Application for Suspensive Effect - EN ORIGINAL - SIGNED | 2025-01-08 | Not public |
| 2025.01.08 Application for Suspensive Effect - EN ORIGINAL - SIGNED | 2025-01-08 | Not public |