UPC CFI, LD Milan, 21 April 2026: UPC jurisdiction regarding infringment in Spain, but stay for Spain until irrevocable decision on validity of Spanish part of EP 364
12-05-2026 Print this page
Dismissal of revocation action (Article 65 |UPCA) and of infringement action (Article 25 UPCA).
Jurisdiction of the UPC in infringement action regarding all defendants, including Spanish defendant (Article 8 Brussels I) for the allegedly infringing conduct committed in Spain by all the defendants: with regard to Defendants nos. 1 and 2, (based on the general rule of the forum of domicile) with regard to Defendant no. 6, based on article 8 Brussels I: risk of irreconcilable judgements, same situation of fact and law, predictability and non abusive summoning.
Competence of the UPC (Article 25 UPCA, Article 32(1)(a) UPCA).
No lack of standing of holding company because of excerpt of the Chamber of commerce (activity consist of “productions and commercialization of sport gear”) and prior engagement in multiple litigations against plaintiff. Whether or not defendant is actually involved in the infringement is a different matter.
Stay of infringement action in respect of Spanish action (R. 295(m) RoP) until the irrevocable decision on validity of the national Spanish portion of EP’364.
No stay of proceedings in spite of accelerated appeal against decision of opposition division (R. 295(a) RoP, R. 298 RoP). Decision of Board of Appeal not expected before the end of 2026, no reasonable likelihood that the patent will be declared in valid given decision of opposition division; the objective of procedural efficiency; as requested by all the parties.
Inventive step and evidence ((R. 171(2) RoP, Article 56 EPC). Documents are facts, how these are interpreted interpretation for the purpose of assessing inventive step is a question of argument.
No infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC). Not all regions that are not occupied by the airbag are second regions within the definition given in claim 1. […]. The Court agrees with the Defendants that the second region cannot be negligible, as already assessed on claim interpretation [...]. It must be sufficient to allow ventilation when the airbag is deflated, and that the airbag expands into this region when it inflates; this is, after all, the invention.
