2024 UPC August

IPPT20240830, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona v Apple
Protected confidential information – trade secrets (Article 9 Trade secret directive, Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A RoP). Information on profit margin can be classified as confidential if it is not available from publicly accessible sources.Information about the few employees having access to this financial information appears to be valuable and confidential in itself. Information that certain products do not support certain functionalities may also be confidential. The existence of a negative fact therefore does not per se exclude the need for secrecy. Information about the group of persons with relevant detailed knowledge of technical information classified a confidential. That information knowledge harbours the potential for targeted attacks in order to obtain confidential information concerning specific, secret functionalities.

IPPT20240830, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Case management order (Rule 101 RoP) following interim conference (Rule 105 RoP) in FRAND case regarding taking of evidence, submission of further documents, panel decision on appeal during oral hearing, objections to delay, non-technical defence, provision for security, preparation for oral hearing.

IPPT20240830, UPC CFI, LD München, Avago v Tesla
Patent declared invalid for lack of novelty. Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). Interpretation of feature  ‘in at least one of ...’. All of the elements listed in feature 1.1.2 in conjunction with the other features 1.2.2 and 1.3.2 are necessarily and therefore cumulatively claimed. Lack of novelty (Article 54 EPC). The subject-matter of claims 1 and 7 and the auxiliary requests is anticipated by D3 ([…]) to the detriment of novelty. In order to be considered part of the prior art in this sense, an invention must be directly and unambiguously disclosed in a single prior art document. It must be identical in its essential components, in the same form, with the same arrangement and with the same features. The lack of novelty also requires that the subject matter of the invention is directly and unambiguously derived from the prior art. This applies to all claim features. The standard for the disclosure content of a publication is what an average person skilled in the relevant field can and may know and understand. 

IPPT20240827, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syngenta v Sumi Agro
Provisional injunction: imminent danger that the Applicant's right will be infringed by the contested embodiment in the Contracting States, in particular in Germany and Bulgaria (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP). It is at least more likely than not that the contested embodiment, the 2023 version of KAGURA, makes literal use of the technical teaching of claim 1. In case of a product claim directed to a composition it is sufficient for the applicant to allege and prove that at the time of any act of use under Art. 25 UPCA by the respondent, the attacked composition had all the features of the patent claim or that there is an imminent danger that such an act of use directed to such a composition will be carried out by the respondent in the future. It is not on the applicant to plead and prove why the composition had all features of the patent claim. Risk of infringement in Contracting States by distributing the 2023 product outside the Contracting States, namely in the Czech Republic, and by advertising "KAGURA" within the Contracting States. The Respondents have in any event created a risk of first infringement that patent-infringing compositions will be manufactured, advertised and distributed by them in the territory of the Contracting States in the future (Art. 25(a), 62(1) UPCA). In the circumstances of this case, in order to eliminate the risk of first infringement, the Respondents should have offered a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause in respect of the 2023 product. In proceedings for provisional measures the number of invalidity arguments must generally be reduced to the best three (R. 211(2) RoP). Temporal urgency, unreasonable delay (R 209(2)(b) RoP,  R 211(4) RoP). In view of the diverging case law on temporal urgency, which grants the applicant only one month, […] the Local Division Munich adheres to its case law granting two months.

IPPT20240827, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hand Held Products v Scandit
Preliminary injunction for indirect infringement (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211.2 RoP). Sufficient degree of certainty for provisional measures regarding indirect infringement, not regarding direct infringement (Article 62(4) UPCA, Rule 211(2) RoP, Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA)). Urgency (Rule 209(2)(b) RoP, Rule 211(3) RoP). As soon as the applicant has all knowledge and documents that reliably enable a promising legal action, he must regularly file the application for interim measures within two months. Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). The person skilled in the art is a team. The possible applications of claim 1 are many. Indirect infringement (article 26 UPCA): it must regularly be assumed that the supplied party will use the means in the manner suggested to it in the supplier's advertising messages, instructions for use and other documents. Direct infringement (article 25 UPCA) uncertain with constellation.Validity. Burden of proof. It is the task of the defendant in the present case to present arguments based on the prior art that make the legal validity of the patent in dispute appear insufficiently secure (Article 54 UPCA). Due to the summary nature of the examination of the legal validity in proceedings for the adoption of interim measures, the number of arguments raised against the legal validity must generally be reduced to the best three. 

IPPT20240826, UPC CFI, LD Copenhagen, Hybridgenerator v HGSystem
Ex parte order for preservation of evidence and inspection ogf property granted (Article 62 UPCA,  R. 211 RoP)

IPPT20240826, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla
The infringement action is unfounded. The counterclaim for revocation is partially justified. Rebuttable presumption of entitlement to European patent (Rule 8.5 RoP). The entry in the patent register has a significant indicative effect when assessing the question of who is the substantive owner of the patent. The Division must assume a rebuttable presumption.  Insofar as the defendants criticise that the plaintiff has not become the proprietor of the patent in suit due to an inadmissible ‘dealing with oneself’ transaction, this objection is not able to shake the legal presumption. Formal requirements of Articles 71-74 EPC are met  with regard to the transfer of rights. Reply to revocation counterclaim filed in time within 2 months of service of the counterclaim, irrespective of the use of the official forms. Rule 4.1 sentence 2 RoP is only a directory provision (Rule 30 RoP, Rule 4 RoP) At least in the initial phase of the UPC - the present complaint was submitted on the first day of the UPC’s operation, 1 June 2023 - the Local Chamber considers it appropriate to apply a more generous standard. Claim interpretation (article 69 EPC). The local division assumes a functional interpretation of the patent in suit. In view of the fact that claim 3 in particular is not limited to semiconductor chips, the person skilled in the art is to be defined as a graduate engineer specialising in electrical engineering with a university degree and several years of experience in the development of power control systems. In the case in dispute, it does not matter under what conditions and to what extent the grant history is relevant for the interpretation of the claim before the UPC. No divergent  interpretation for infringement and validity. Inventive step (article 56 EPC). An invention is deemed to exist if it does not result from the usual approach of the person skilled in the art, but requires an additional creative effort on their part. Contrary to the view of the defendant, the expert would have had no reason to look for allocation solutions in the style of D 4 after reading D 1. A problem-solution approach would not lead to a different result. Partial revocation (Article 65(3) UPCA). In the opinion of the local division, a patent only be revoked in nullity proceedings before the UPC to the extent that the grounds for revocation are sufficient, so that a patent can also remain (partially) in force to the extent of individual independent patent claims within the scope of the complete set of claims filed as the main or auxiliary request, if this corresponds to the procedural concern of the patent proprietor.

IPPT20240826, UPC CoA, Ballinno v Kinexon Sports
Adequate security for legal costs and other expenses equally available in appeal (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158(1) RoP, Rule 222(2) RoP). Ballinno ordered to provide security for legal costs in appeal in the (total) amount of € 25.000.  The provision of security for costs does not hamper access to justice. (Article 47 EU Charter)

IPPT20240823, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Ericsson v Asustek
Leave for an unconditional limitation of the scope of the initial claim (Rule 263(3) RoP). Defendant Arvato should no longer be considered to be infringing according to Art. 25(a) UPCA, but regarded as an intermediary according to Art. 62(1) UPCA, whose services are used by the other Defendants to infringe the Patent.

IPPT20240823, UPC CFI, President, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy 
Change of language from German to English (the language of the patent) granted (Article 49 UPCA). English language application to change the language of the proceedings from German to English declared admissible (Rule 7.1 RoP, Rule 14.4 RoP, Rule 323 RoP). According to R. 7.1 RoP, it is within the Court’s discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis whether an application lodged in a different language under R. 323 RoP should be rejected. If both parties are in a comparable situation, the position of the defendant (s) is the decisive factor. It appears that changing the language of the proceedings would greatly facilitate the coordination among the Defendants – especially those that are not German entities – while not posing any detriment to the Claimant which operates and communicates in English. 

IPPT20240822, UPC CoA, UPC Representative
Petition for review of rejection of application to be entered on the list of UPC representatives  dismissed (Article 48(2) UPCA). Representation requires both EPO qualification and an additional litigation qualification under Art. 48(2) UPCA. The qualifications are exhaustively defined in the EPLC Rules and must be proven by certificates

IPPT20240822, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Astellas v Healios
Applicant granted access to the written pleadings and evidence (Rule 262 RoP). Once proceedings have come to an end the integrity of proceedings is no longer at stake and the balance of interests will normally be in favour of granting access to written pleadings and evidence pursuant to Rule 262.1(b) RoP, subject to the redaction of personal data and the redaction of confidential information pursuant to Rule 262.2 RoP).

IPPT20240821, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
Certain information classified as confidential for confidentiality club (Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A RoP, Article 9 Trade Secrets Directive). The fact that precisely the information now classified as confidential by the Defendants was publicly discussed in the Stuttgart proceedings has not been sufficiently demonstrated by the Applicant, nor is it apparent.

IPPT20240821, UPC CoA, Aylo v Dish - II
Application for discretionary review of confidentiality club order with no leave to appeal dismissed (Rule 220(3) RoP, Rule 262A RoP). No reasons set out that would justify allowing appeal against the order of the Local Division Mannheim of 22 July 2024, which is based on the principle that the abstract risk that an in-house counsel, if admitted to confidentiality club might breach the confidentiality obligation due to conflicts of interest is not sufficient to refuse admission, unless there are concrete circumstances justifying such a suspicion.

IPPT20240821, UPC CoA, Aylo v Dish - I
Request for discretionary review in the absence of leave to appeal (Rule 220(4) RoP). Parties cannot take procedural steps of their own motion (Rule 9(1) RoP; Rule 36 RoP). It follows from Rule 36 RoP that a reasoned request and authorisation by the judge is required. The written submissions provided for in R.220.4 of the Rules of Procedure are an application and, if the Permanent Judge hears the other party, a reply. Any further submissions must be authorised by the Standing Judge)

IPPT20240821, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno
Inadmissible request for discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of an order rejecting – without leave to appeal – the ‘R.361 RoP request’ to declare the revocation action as manifestly inadmissible (Rule 361 RoP). Leave to appeal as provided for in Rule 220.2 RoP required because the provision of Rule 363(2) RoP that a “decision  […] pursuant to Rules […] 361 […] is a final decision within the meaning of Rule 220.1(a)” (for which leave to appeal is not required) only concerns orders granting a ´R.361 RoP request´. An order denying a R.361 RoP request is a case management order as meant in R.333.1 RoP that cannot be directly appealed but can only be reviewed by the panel.

IPPT20240821, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Kinexon v Ballinno
Generally unjustified to stay revocation proceedings because of appeal against the denial of provisional measures (Rule 295(m) RoP). If the lodging of an appeal would suffice for a stay of proceedings, a party lodging an appeal against a decision rejecting provisional measures would have it in its hands to influence and alter the tight timeframe as provided for by the UPCA. Such a stay for an unpredictable time would be at odds with the aforementioned guideline of an oral hearing within one year and clashes with the Respondent’s legitimate interest in obtaining a decision by the UPC to determine its freedom to operate as soon as possible. 

IPPT20240821, UPC CoA, Apple v Ona
Reply to Statement of response not taken into account. Further written pleadings may only be filed after a Rule 36 RoP request, filed before the closing of the interim procedure, has been granted (Rule 239 RoP). In appeal there is no provision for notification in accordance with Rule 35a RoP.

IPPT20240821, UPC CFI, LD Paris, HP v Lama France
All parts of the Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defence of HP, except point 3 and related exhibits, excluded as inadmissible: not limited to a response to the matters raised in the Reply to the Statement of defence (Rule 29(c) RoP). If HPDC considered that new arguments on the infringement claim justified an additional exchange, it was up to it to request this from the Judge-Rapporteur by means of a reasoned request on Rule 36 RoP. It is clear from R 12 RoP that the Rules of Procedure have divided the written procedure into several successive streams. These flows, accompanied by strict deadlines, have been designed to ensure the most efficient and economical procedure possible before the UPC, in accordance with point 4 of the preamble. Full repetition of arguments does not help the court make better decisions. Full repetition of the arguments is superfluous, tends to increase the number of pages of the pleadings (to date more than 1,760 pages […]) which does not help the judges to give a decision of the highest quality as provided for in point 6 of the RoP preamble.

IPPT20240820, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril - II
Application for security for legal costs dismissed (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 158 RoP). No indication that the Claimant would lack assets or will to pay costs of the proceedings and other costs incurred (or to be incurred) by Defendants, which the Claimant may have to bear. Nor is there any evidence suggesting that a possible order for costs by the UPC would not, or only in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable in the United States.

IPPT20240820, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril - I
No stay of proceedings because a final decision in EPO opposition cannot be expected rapidly; notice of opposition filed on 7 March 2024 (Article 33(10) UPCA, Rule 295(a) RoP). Stay of proceedings because of pending EPO opposition is during the written procedure governed by Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP (containing the option to stay). Rule 118 RoP (containing an option to stay as well as an obligation to stay) only applies to the oral procedure. Although the general provision of Rule 295(a) RoP may in theory apply in certain situations where an EPO opposition is pending, Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP contain the more specific provisions. Stay of proceedings based on Article 33(3) UPCA in case of a counterclaim for revocation may be dismissed if bifurcation has not been proposed

IPPT20240819, UPC CoA, Sibio v Abbott
Manifestly erroneous that Ireland is a Contracting Member State of the UPC (Article 84.2 UPCA) and  thus cannot be considered to be covered by Abbott’s request for a preliminary injunction. The Court of First Instance therefore awarded more than was requested for, which is contrary to Art. 76 UPCA. Suspensive effect granted insofar as the impugned order extends to the territory of Ireland. Application for suspensive effect admissible (Rule 223 RoP, Article 74 UPCA). Not a requirement that a request for suspensive effect is lodged in a separate workflow in the Court’s case management system

IPPT20240816, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Ericsson v Asustek
The Statement of claim requirement to provide “information about any prior or pending proceedings relating to the patent concerned” of Rule 13.1(h) RoP specifically serves the purpose to limit the risk of contradictory decision and lis pendens situations, which can formally be avoided based on the requirements to inform the UPC of prior or pending proceedings relating to the patent concerned before the case is attributed to a panel. The Court further notes that, in case of a possible ex parte proceedings, R. 206.4 RoP demands even higher requirements – any pending proceedings and/or any unsuccessful attempt in the past to obtain provisional measures in respect of the patent. Rule 13.1(h) RoP requires only information, not any kind of Annexes or evidence.

IPPT20240816, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Wide discretion of the Court to design how “time shall begin to run afresh” after the stay of proceedings comes to an end in accordance with the relevant general principles such as procedural economy and flexibility (Rule 296(3) RoP). In the court's view, this is essentially a situation in which the claimant has to bring a new action with clarified circumstances and the defendant has to put forward new defence accordingly, derived from the TBA decision. The Court is in the position, that the written procedure as such has to be repeated, but with shorter time limits.

IPPT20240814, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC v TCL
Confidentiality club (R. 262A RoP). Access granted to the representatives named as the Claimant’s representatives in the statement of claim. In order not to restrict the Claimant’s right to choose its legal representatives, the Court has granted these representatives the right to share the relevant information with their team working on the case. 

IPPT20240813, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NST v Texas Instruments
Withdrawal  only regarding some defendants possible (Rule 265 RoP). The withdrawal of the action is permitted because the Defendants 1) and 2) have declared their consent. There are no other reasons to continue the proceedings with regard to Defendant 1) and 2). The decision about costs follows the agreement of the Parties involved: Attorney’s fees, costs of court and expenses are borne by the party incurring the same. 

IPPT20240812, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Swarco v Strabag
Petitioner’s request for access to the Statement of claim, the pleadings including the evidence rejected at the current stage of the proceedings (Article 45 UPCA, Rule 262 RoP). The general interest of justice includes the protection of the integrity of the proceedings. During pending proceeding the access requested by the applicant must have a significant impact on its circumstances and the interest must be concrete. In order to assess whether the applicant's product fulfils one or more features of the patent in suit, it does not need the statement of claim including the evidence of these ongoing proceedings. 

IPPT20240809, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Abbott v DexCom
Confidentiality club  (R. 262A RoP). Access granted to the representatives named as the Claimant’s representatives in the statement of claim. In order not to restrict the Claimant’s right to choose its legal representatives, the Court has granted these representatives the right to share the relevant information with their team working on the case. 

IPPT20240809, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Aiko Energy v Maxeon Solar
Withdrawal of Statement for Revocation before being served has the same legal effect as if it had not been lodged at all. No legitimate interest for the Defendant to participate (Rule 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 60% of Court fees (Rule 370(9) RoP).

IPPT20240809, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, AGFA v Gucci
Confidentiality club protection for trade secrets and confidential information, restricting use or disclosure outside of the present court proceedings.  (Rule 262A RoP, Article 9 Trade Secrets Directive). The existence of a trade secret does not have to be established to the court's satisfaction, but it is sufficient if this is predominantly probable. The following information relating to the internal organization, the supply chain and sales data of the Gucci group are classified as confidential pursuant to R. 262A RoP. Restricting the use of confidential instead of limiting access thereto, does not endanger the right of the other party right to be heard and the right to argue its case successfully and does not does not require the same strict balancing of interest as a limitation of access within the proceedings.

IPPT20240808, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Confidentiality club membership (Rule 262A RoP). In general, there is no reason to limit the authorised representatives of a party to a certain number or even to UPC representatives and their internal assistants, who must also be named. However, it must be clear who is obliged to maintain confidentiality and who can be held responsible and legally liable in the event of a breach of the confidentiality order. (Rule 262A RoP). In principle, it is the responsibility of each party to identify the natural persons to be granted access to the confidential information. Once a party has done so and has identified the natural persons to whom it wishes to grant access to the confidential information, it is for the other party to state the reasons why, in its opinion, such access should not be granted in the particular case.

IPPT20240808, UPC CoA, Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Amgen
Service of written pleadings via other electronic systems than the CMS cannot be considered effective service under  Rule 278.1 RoP.

IPPT20240806, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Semiconductor v Amazon II

IPPT20240806, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Semiconductor v Amazon
Withdrawal because of out-of-court settlement (Rule 265 RoP). Reimbursement of 60% of  Court fees (Rule 370 RoP)

IPPT20240806, UPC CoA, 10x Genomics v Nanostring
Application for rehearing inadmissible; no fundamental procedural defects (Article 81 UPCA, Rule 247(e) RoP). Grounds for the decision not based on personal opinion of one or more of the judges but on evidence, including the patent specification, supporting Nanostring’s arguments. With the words "in the judgement of the technically competent court" only expressed that it was particularly equipped and qualified to assess the arguments and evidence presented in a technically complex matter. The assessment of the arguments and evidence presented by the parties is made by the appellate court hearing the case and is not subject to review on a motion for rehearing. Court of Appeal not precluded from cost decision in  appeal decision that concludes actions for provisional and protective measures (Rule 118(5) RoP, Rule 242(1) RoP, Article 62 UPCA). 

IPPT20240806, UPC CoA, Nera v Xiaomi
IPPT20240805, UPC CoA, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Statement of claim cannot be validly served on Xiaomi companies in China and Hong Kong at the business address of Xiaomi DE in Germany (Rule 273 - 274 RoP). No decision on costs by the Court of Appeal because the decision in appeal is not a final order or concluding an action (Rule 151 RoP, Rule 242(1) RoP)

IPPT20240806, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Qufora v Sauer
No waiver translation requirements, given that the panel as a whole lacks the necessary language skills with regard to the original German-language documents (Article 51(1) UPCA, Article 42 UPCA, Rule 7(1) RoP). Art. 51 (1) UPCA is based on the idea of a flexible and efficient procedural organisation, whereby an appropriate balance must be struck between the interests of the parties, taking into account the principle of proportionality (recital 5 of the preamble to the UPCA; Art. 42 UPCA). Whether such a waiver is appropriate is determined by the specific circumstances of the individual case. A comprehensive balancing of interests must take place. In particular, the language skills of the parties and their representatives and the language skills of the panel must be taken into account. The volume, the length or the quantity and the nature of the documents in question and their relevance to the proceedings is also of relevance. Other aspects may also be relevant in individual cases. Opportunity to be heard: The person affected by an order must, in general, be granted a hearing before the order is issued (Rule 264 RoP)

IPPT20240806, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC V TCL
Service of Statement of claim on Defendant 2 (Rule 271 RoP). Defendant's statement of 30 July 2024 is deemed to be proof of service. There is no need to wait for further proof of service from the Chinese authorities.

IPPT20240806, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Motorola v Ericsson
Leave to change claim rejected (Rule 263(2)(a) RoP). If either condition is not met, the court's discretion is reduced to zero and it must refuse the application.The applications for injunctive relief and further corrective measures, i.e. recall, permanent removal and destruction of the allegedly infringing embodiments, could, with reasonable diligence, have been brought earlier than 06/05/2024. The statement of claim was served on the defendants on 17/02/2024. Therefore, the application for amendment could and should have been filed by mid-February at the latest. As this is a clear-cut case leave to appeal is not granted (Rule 220(2) RoP).

IPPT20240806, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Winnow v Orbisk
Extension granted from 20 August 2024 to 6 September 2024 for filing response to Rule 190 RoP request (order to produce evidence). The Statement of defence and the reply to the R. 190 request so not (necessarily) have to be filed on the same date.

IPPT20240805, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v epert e-Commerce
Subsequent request to amend the patent requires permission of the Court, which permission can be postponed at the discretion of the Court, in which case admission of the auxiliary request is still possible depending on the further progress of the proceedings (Rule 30(2) RoP). Two month period of Rule 32(1) RoP for lodging a Defence to the Application to amend the patent does not apply to later subsequent requests to amend the patent of Rule 30(2) RoP.

IPPT20240805, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sodastream v Aarke
Security for costs dismissed (Rule 158 RoP). Neither a financial risk nor a likelihood of unenforceability is presented to the Court. It is not disputed by the parties that the claimant, as part of the PepsiCo group, is financially able to comply with a decision on costs. The defendant's sole argument that it had doubts as to the claimant's compliance with a decision could not be substantiated by facts. 

IPPT20240805, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut
Security (deposit) to be released when the period for requesting panel review has expired (Rule 333 RoP, Rule 352(2) RoP, Rule 45 Registry Rules). Double security – a deposit and a bank guarantee – can also be the reason and cause for a release decision.

IPPT20240802, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
An amendment of an application for amendment of a patent is not governed by Rule 263 RoP but to be classified as a subsequent request to amend the patent within the meaning of Rule 30(2) RoP, which is admissible only with the permission of the Court Territorial limitation of the amendment was inadmissible, in the absence objective reasons for it (Article 34 UPCA). The new applications, without territorial limitations, are ultimately only a clarification of the previous legal situation, is admissible and allowed under Rule 30(2) RoP. 

IPPT20240802, UPC CFI, LD Paris, HP v Lama France
Request for communication of invoices, relating to the allegedly infringing cartridges [..] which were imported by LAMA FRANCE outside the territory of the European Union, granted, subject to confidentiality club (Rule 191 RoP, Rule 262A RoP). The question […] is whether LAMA is a manufacturer, importer, and/or offers, places on the market the allegedly infringing products.