UPC Analytics
ENDE

Decisions

DateCaseDivisionActionMotionOutcomeSummary
2025-06-16ACT_14764/2025Hamburg LDApplication for provisional measuresPreliminary injunctionPI grantedHamburg Local Division granted a preliminary injunction ordering OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH to cease and desist from manufacturing, offering, placing on the market, using, exporting, or possessing in 18 UPC contracting states an electrolytic medium for electropolishing processes that infringes a patent for such a medium. The court held that validity is established on a balance of probabilities standard (more likely than not valid); the burden for invalidity lies with the defendant. The weighing of interests favoured the applicant as the defendant's product enabled new machine sales creating market opportunities lost to the applicant. The defendant's request for security for enforcement was denied as no sufficient facts (e.g. financial difficulties) were presented. Penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.
2025-06-16ACT_14764/2025Hamburg LDApplication for provisional measuresProceduralProcedural onlyThe Hamburg Local Division (full panel: Klepsch, Schilling, Rinkinen, Goedeweeck) partially granted OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the provisional measures order of 16 June 2025 granted to Steros GPA Innovative S.L. concerning EP 4 249 647. The court corrected clerical mistakes (omitted letters) and certain erroneous references (water-in-oil to oil-in-water emulsion, a missing table reference, and a result table entry). However, the court rejected OTEC's request to alter the description of the 'skilled person' in the art, finding that this went beyond rectification of obvious slips.
2025-05-08ACT_3186/2025Lisbon LDApplication for provisional measuresPreliminary injunctionPI deniedLisbon Local Division denied Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH's application for a preliminary injunction against Zentiva Portugal, LDA concerning EP 1 830 843 (nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis). The court found no imminent infringement: Zentiva's receipt of marketing authorisations and filing of a parallel exclusivity period (PEP) request did not demonstrate that market entry was imminent before patent expiry. The PEP request was filed in the usual course of business and the Defendant was aware of the risk of PEP expiry. Value of case set at EUR 1,000,000.
2025-05-08UPC_CFI_582/2024Brussels LDGeneric applicationDismissedThe Brussels Local Division dismissed Yealink's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Final Order of 21 March 2025, which had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures and ordered Barco to pay Yealink's costs up to the EUR 112,000 ceiling. Yealink sought to clarify the order by adding the word 'interim' to the costs award, but the court found no clerical error, miscalculation or obvious omission warranting rectification. The court confirmed that the costs award of EUR 112,000 against Barco (the unsuccessful party in the provisional measures) was already clearly an interim award on the face of the Final Order.
2025-03-21UPC_CFI_582/2024Brussels LDApplication for provisional measuresPI deniedThe Local Division Brussels dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures against Yealink due to lack of urgency. Barco had waited an unreasonably long period before filing, having been aware of the allegedly infringing products since at least May 2023. Barco was ordered to pay Yealink's costs up to EUR 112,000. Dispute value set at EUR 1,000,000.
2024-06-19ACT_14945/2024The Hague LDApplication for provisional measuresPreliminary injunctionPI deniedApplication for a preliminary injunction by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. concerning EP 3 831 283 (wearable glucose monitoring device) was denied by The Hague Local Division. The court found it more likely than not that claim 1 of the patent would be held invalid for added matter (the claimed feature of a connector support being received through a distal-facing opening into a recess was not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed). As a result, Abbott must bear defendants' costs. Value of the action set at EUR 4,000,000.