UPC CoA, 21 May 2025: No suspensive effect appeal of order denying security for enforcement or recall-, removal- and destruction-orders

Unsuccessful application for suspensive effect of appeal (Article 74(1) UPCA, R. 223 RoP). 

The application for suspensive effect must on its own, enable the appeal court to decide on the application, if necessary without further information. References to passages in written pleadings and documents in the first-instance files are permissible, provided that they are specified in sufficient detail. 

Ordering security for enforcement is not necessary in every case but at the discretion of the Court (Article 82(1) UPCA). The Local Division correctly assumed that it is necessary to weigh the interest of the patent proprietor in the effective enforcement of his property right against the interest of the alleged patent infringer in the effective enforcement of possible claims for damages in the event of a subsequent annulment of the decision. 

No obvious error in weighing up the interests involved. Given that Knaus Tabbert was aware of the disputed patent and therefore took a calculated risk of patent infringement by marketing the contested embodiments, it is reasonable to refrain from ordering security for enforcement. 

No obvious error with regard to proportionality by orders for recall, removal from commerce and destruction of not only the contested frames, but the entire caravan. The patent does not protect individual components of minor importance, but rather the basic design of the caravan. 

Even if the disagreements between the parties, as argued by Knaus Tabbert, are only of a financial nature, the Order for destruction in particular may be justified. 

No risk of appeal becoming moot. It is true that, in the event of destruction of the contested embodiments, these cannot be reversed. However, Knaus Tabbert is entitled to damages in this case. It does not follow from Knaus Tabbert's submission that its interests are not sufficiently taken into account by the payment of damages. 

No reason to allow the argument that Yellow Sphere’s financial situation is insufficient to be raised for the first time in appeal. Proceedings for a stay of enforcement, in which the appeal court decides on the application without delay (R. 223.3 RoP) are not suitable for findings on the claimant’s financial circumstances, which – as a rule – can only be made after hearing the opposing party and findings of fact may also be necessary.

IPPT20250521, UPC CoA, Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere.