UPClytics
English
Sign inSign up
Overview · Filed: Sep 20, 2024

UPC_CFI_541/2024

COMPOSITION FOR COMBATING ECTOPARASITES AND THEIR OVA

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresMannheim LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C.KG applied to the Mannheim Local Division for provisional measures against pharma-aktiva GmbH and ALDI entities for infringement of EP 1 993 363 B1 (polysiloxane composition for combating ectoparasites and their eggs). The court granted the provisional measures order prohibiting the defendants from making, offering, distributing, using or importing the infringing composition in Germany and Austria, declined to require security because defendants had already voluntarily ceased sales, and imposed a fine of EUR 100 per infringing item.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Infringement of EP 1 993 363 B1 (ectoparasite composition) by defendants' product is established at provisional measures stage

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 206 VerfO

    Note: Defendants did not substantially contest the infringement finding; court found the legal standing of the patent sufficiently secure to grant measures.

  • No security (Sicherheitsleistung) is required because defendants had already ceased distribution and plan to destroy remaining stock

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(5) UPCA; Art. 60(7) UPCA; R. 211.5 VerfO

    Note: Because defendants voluntarily stopped selling and no substantial harm would flow from the order, security would be disproportionate.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Security (Sicherheitsleistung) should be required before granting provisional measures

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62(5) UPCA; R. 211.5 VerfO

    Reason: Defendants had already ceased distribution; no material harm would result from the order; defendants themselves did not allege impending harm.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Security is not required where defendants have already ceased infringing conduct and face no material harm from the orderProvisional measures may issue on a preliminary assessment of infringement without full determination of meritsWhere defendant does not substantively contest infringement, validity threshold for provisional measures is metProvisional cost reimbursement under UPC provisional measures practice

Browse other cases on this principle.