Article 62
Print this pageProvisional and protective measures
1. The Court may, by way of order, grant injunctions against an alleged infringer or against an intermediary whose services are used by the alleged infringer, intended to prevent any imminent infringement, to prohibit, on a provisional basis and subject, where appropriate, to a recurring penalty payment, the continuation of the alleged infringement or to make such continuation subject to the lodging of guarantees intended to ensure the compensation of the right holder.
2. The Court shall have the discretion to weigh up the interests of the parties and in particular to take into account the potential harm for either of the parties resulting from the granting or the refusal of the injunction.
3. The Court may also order the seizure or delivery up of the products suspected of infringing a patent so as to prevent their entry into, or movement, within the channels of commerce. If the applicant demonstrates circumstances likely to endanger the recovery of damages, the Court may order the precautionary seizure of the movable and immovable property of the alleged infringer, including the blocking of the bank accounts and of other assets of the alleged infringer.
4. The Court may, in respect of the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3, require the applicant to provide any reasonable evidence in order to satisfy itself with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is the right holder and that the applicant's right is being infringed, or that such infringement is imminent.
5. Article 60(5) to (9) shall apply by analogy to the measures referred to in this Article.
Case law
Court of Appeal
IPPT20250304, UPC CoA, Sumi Agro v Syngenta
Provisional injunction confirmed. Infringement more likely than not (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA). Syngenta has […] fulfilled its burden – in other words, satisfied the Court that it is more likely than not – that the Kagura 2024 product contains FFA that fall within the range (1 % to 95 % by weight) protected by claim 1 of the patent. More likely than not that the patent is valid. Sumi Agro’s novelty attack fails because it relies on the presence of common general knowledge with the person skilled in the art that rapeseed oil may include a small amount (up to 2 %) of FFA, which has not been demonstrated, (Article 54 EPC). The mere chance that the skilled person could choose such an ingredient is insufficient for a finding of lack of inventive step. (Article 56 EPC). Necessity provisional injunction because price pressure and permanent price erosion can be expected (Article 62 UPCA, R. 206.2 RoP). Syngenta not required to demonstrate and quantify how sales have been affected during the time when both products (Elumis and Kagura) were on the market.
IPPT20250224, UPC CoA, Biolitec v Light Guide
Unsuccessful appeal of rejection of provisional injunction changing the status quo on the market. Provisional measures require that proceedings on the merits – which offer more procedural safeguards – cannot be awaited (Article 62 UPCA, R. 206 RoP, R. 211 RoP). The requested measures would change the status quo on the market, established years before the grant of the patent. Appellant has not demonstrated that provisional measures are necessary to protect its current market share or prices or for any other purpose that cannot await a decision on the merits. Late filed price erosion argument and auxiliary request covering alleged infringed acts at 2025 trade fair (R. 222.2 RoP). Biolitec has not justified why the argument on price erosion could not reasonably have been raised during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
IPPT20250214, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sibio
Weighing of interest; irreparable harm (Article 60(5) UPCA; Article 62(2) UPCA). The interest of Sibionics to be able to enter and stay on the market during proceedings on the merits do not outweigh the interests of Abbott by an immediate injunction. The damages of Sibionics due to later market entry should the injunction be lifted in proceedings on the merit will be easier to quantify, whereas Abbott’s damages due to the long term effect of price erosion is difficult to quantify, also in view of its influence on the price of similar devices marketed by third parties and on the prices set by insurers. Sibionics discounts will ead to a negative price spiral which, especially in this type of market, is very difficult to reverse, thus causing irreparable harm to Abbott. No limitation of injunction to specific infringing products (Article 62(1) UPCA). The need for a limitation of the issued injunction to the specific infringing products cannot be inferred from Art. 62(1) UPCA. The scope of the general injunction requested by Abbott – which always has to be interpreted in the light of the reasoning underlying the order whereby the injunction is issued – is sufficiently clear, and not too broad.
IPPT20250214, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sibio
Impugned order revoked (Article 75 UPCA) – provisional measures granted (Article 62 UPCA). Measures mentioned in Article 67 UPCA may also be ordered in the framework of provisional measure proceedings, always provided that there is an urgent interest and such measures are proportionate (Article 62 UPCA). N
IPPT20241203, UPC CoA, SharkNinja v Dyson
Provisional injunction lifted (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP). Not more likely than not that the patent is infringed. it is not more likely than not that the contested embodiments realise feature 1.3 of claim 1. No need to examine the other grounds brought forward by the parties, given the assessment in relation to feature 1.3 of claim 1. Claim construction feature 1.3: “cyclonic separating apparatus”.
IPPT20240925, UPC CoA, Mammut v Ortovox
Unreasonable delay in seeking provisional measures (R. 211.4 RoP). The decisive point in time is when the applicant has the necessary facts and evidence within the meaning of R.206.2d RoP or, having exercised due care, should have had them. Whether a delay is unreasonably long within the meaning of R.211.4 Rules of Procedure depends on the circumstances of the individual case. Since Ortovox first became aware of an impending patent infringement on 28 November 2023, Ortovox did not wait an unreasonably long time to file the application on 1 December 2023; on the contrary, Ortovox filed it promptly. The fact that the orders were not served until 21 or 22 December 2023, and thus the pre-Christmas business could not be prevented, as intended by Ortovox, is not a circumstance related to the period claimed until the application was filed. Irrespective of this, even if all the circumstances were taken into account, this period would not be unreasonably long. Irreparable harm is not a necessary condition for ordering provisional measures (Article 62(2) UPCA, R. 211 RoP, Article 9 Enforcement Directive) (see CJEU, judgment of 28 April 2022, C-44/21, Phoenix/Harting ECLI:EU:C:2022:309, para. 32). Art. 62(2) UPCA and R.211.3 RoP only refer to the possibility of damage, which is to be taken into account when weighing up the interests. Even R.212.1 RP, which allows an ex parte order, does not necessarily require irreparable damage.
IPPT20240806, UPC CoA, 10x Genomics v Nanostring
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).
IPPT20240513, UPC CoA, VusionGroup v Hanshow
Sufficient degree of certainty that the right is being infringed (Rule 211.2 RoP; Article 62(4) UPCA) […] requires that the Court consider it on the balance of probabilities at least more likely than not that the patent is infringed.
IPPT20240226, UPC CoA, AIM Sport v Supponor
Parties requested to comment on non-compliance with Rule 224.1(b) RoP, providing that a Statement of Appeal of an order has to be filed within 15 days of service of an order referred to in Rule 220.1(c) RoP. Under “Information about Appeal” the CFI has indicated that the decision could be appealed within two months of the date of notification of the decision, referring to Article 73(1) UPCA and Rule 220.1(a) and Rule 224.1(a) RoP concerning an appeal against a decision, such as a decision in an infringement action, while in one of the two actions AIM sought a preliminary injunction order pursuant to Article 62 UPCA.
IPPT20240226, UPC CoA, Nanostring v 10x Genomics II
The validity of the patent at issue is not established with a sufficient degree of certainty for the [preliminary] injunction requested to be issued (Rule 211 RoP, Article 62 UPCA, Article 9(3) Enforrcement Directive). A sufficient degree of certainty is lacking if the court considers it on the balance of probabilities to be more likely than not that the patent is not valid. Standard of proof regarding order for provisional measures issued by way of summary proceedings. Since the order for provisional measures is issued by way of summary proceedings pursuant to R. 205 et seq. RoP, in which the opportunities for the parties to present facts and evidence are limited, the Court of Appeal agrees with the Court of First Instance that the standard of proof must not be set too high, in particular if delays associated with a reference to proceedings on the merits would cause irreparable harm to the proprietor of the patent [...]. On the other hand, it must not be set too low in order to prevent the defendant from being harmed by an order for a provisional measure that is revoked at a later date [...]. The burden of presentation and proof for facts allegedly establishing the entitlement to initiate proceedings and the infringement or imminent infringement of the patent, as well as for all other circumstances allegedly supporting the Applicant's request, lies with the Applicant, whereas, unless the subject-matter of the decision is the ordering of measures without hearing the defendant pursuant to Art. 60(5) in conjunction with Art. 62(5) UPCA, the burden of presentation and proof for facts concerning the lack of validity of the patent and other circumstances allegedly supporting the Defendant's position lies with the Defendant. The aforementioned allocation of the burden of presentation and proof in summary proceedings is in line with the allocation of the burden of presentation and proof in proceedings on the merits.
IPPT20240215, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
Court fee of € 11.000 is payable for appeal under Rule 220(1)(a) RoP against an order determining which party is to bear the costs of the proceedings in the context of the dismissal of an application for interim measures under Rule 360 RoP. (Rule 228 RoP). In the absence of a specific fee, the fee is to be paid for the case that is most comparable to the present case according to the system of the table of fees. The Table of Fees determines the fee for an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP based on the nature of the action or application decided by the Court of First Instance. Under this system, the provision providing for a fee of €11,000 for an appeal under Rule 220.1(c) RoP concerning a request for provisional measures under Article 62 UPCA applies mutatis mutandis to the present appeal proceedings. This is because these appeal proceedings also concern an appeal against an order terminating proceedings relating to a request for provisional measures under Article 62 UPCA.
Court of First Instance
IPPT20250303, UPC CFI, LD Copenhagen, Hybridgenerator v HGSystem
The rules on the preservation of evidence do not prevent a subsequent further examination of the relevant material that has been secured during the preservation of evidence. (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP). No order to pay recurring penalty: at this point in time, it appears that all the required codes have been provided in order for the evidence to be secured.
IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Nokia v Sunmi
Ex parte anti-anti-suit-injunction (Article 62(5) UPCA). Anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions violate the rights to justice; they constitute unlawful interference with the applicant's property-like right (Munich Local Chamber, order of 9 December 2024, CFI_755/2024 – Avago/Realtek). Imminent infringement of a patent holder’s right (Article 62(1) UPCA, R. 211 RoP). An infringement of a patent holder's right is imminent within the meaning of Article 62(1) EPC if the infringement has not yet occurred but there are serious and tangible factual indications, based on specific circumstances, that the respondent will engage in unlawful conduct in the near future. The infringing act must be clearly discernible. It must only depend on the respondent's intention whether the final step to commence the infringement is taken. This depends on the circumstances of the individual case. Special circumstances speak against providing security (R. 211.5 RoP). Difficulties of service in the People’s Republic of China and service at EuroCis trade fair which end the next day
IPPT20250121, UPC CFI, LD Munich, air up v Guangzhou Aiyun
Pursuant to the principle of effective legal protection it must always be possible to establish good service, at least in accordance with R. 275.2 RoP . Consequently, neither the ordering nor the enforcement of provisional measures under Article 62 UPCA can be frustrated by the fact that an application for a preliminary injunction or a court order issued in accordance with such an application cannot be served.
IPPT20241219, UPC CFI, LD Copenhagen, Hybridgenerator v HGSystem
Ex parte order for preservation of evidence and inspection of property of 26 August 2024 upheld (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP). The report prepared by the appointed independent IT expert will be provided to the representatives of the parties to the case. The representatives are obliged to keep secret any trade secrets and other confidential information that may come to their knowledge in this connection. The report can only be used as evidence in the main proceedings. The decision on costs is postponed until the main proceedings
IPPT20241209, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Realtek
Anti-anti-suit and -anti-enforcement injunction granted (Article 62 UPCA). The UPC jurisdiction to issue interim measures to grant legal protection against imminent (foreign) prohibition regarding litigation and/or enforcement follows from Article 32(1)(a)(c) UPCA. A (foreign) prohibition on legal proceedings and/or enforcement violates the general European right to a fair trial (Art. 47 EU Charter). The prohibitions also contradict the German right to justice pursuant to Art. 2(1) and 19(4) of the German Basic Law (GG) and are to be classified as unlawful acts within the meaning of Section 823(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB).
IPPT20241125, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Häfele v Kunstsoff
Application for provisional measures dismissed (Article 62 UPCA, Rule 211 RoP). Extraordinary damages caused by further distribution not submitted, lock-in effect cannot be established. Doubts as to the novelty of the patent in suit in spite of response of EPO Examining Division to the raised objections of third parties based on D8. Weighing of party interests (Article 62(2) UPCA, R. 211(3) RoP). Above all, the weighing of interests must take into account the probability of an erroneous decision and also the objective urgency in terms of the necessity of provisional measures with regard to equally possible proceedings on the merits. Main proceedings are the rule, provisional measures the exception. Is it reasonable or unreasonable for the applicant to wait for a decision in the main proceedings? Doubts as to the novelty of the patent in suit carry additional weight in the weighing of interests. Unreasonable delay – objective urgency (R. 211(4) RoP) links the requirement of objective urgency with the subjective right of the applicant. The provision expresses that an applicant whose conduct already subjectively indicates that he is in no hurry cannot expect to receive assistance through the ordering of interim measures. However, the reverse conclusion, that interim measures are to be ordered simply because the applicant has acted quickly, does not apply. Rather, the ordering of interim measures must also be objectively urgent.
IPPT20241105, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Pirelli v Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber
IPPT20241105, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Pirelli v Tianjin Kingtyre
Ex parte seizure at the EICMA trade fair and delivery up of disputed tyres and any promotional materials (Article 62(5) UPCA, R. 212 RoP)
IPPT20241031, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
Provisional injunction granted for direct and literal infringement with carveout for BMW supplies (R. 211 RoP, Article 62 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC). It is more likely than not that the patent in suit is infringed by the offer and distribution of the challenged embodiments in the territory of the Contracting Member States Germany and France (R. 211.2 RoP).
IPPT20241015, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Ericsson v Asustek
Application for provisional measures dismissed (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP).Temporal urgency (R. 211(4) RoP): The burden of proving urgency and due diligence in initiating proceedings is not satisfied if the Applicant fails to provide the Court with the exact date when it became aware of the infringement, particularly when the Court has no other factual or objective temporal indication beyond the date the infringement commenced. An auxiliary request to amend a patent claim in provisional measures is incompatible with the nature of such proceedings (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211. RoP). Requirements for preliminary injunctions (R. 211 RoP) are cumulative. The cumulative nature of the previously mentioned requirements allows the Court not to address all the requirements if one is not satisfied. […] In such cases, the Court may exercise discretion in assessing the other requirements presented by the parties.
IPPT20240909, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Philips IP v Shenzhen
Ex parte preliminary injunction and seizure of infringing oral cleansing system in connection with IFA 2024 trade fair in Berlin following earlier cease-and-desist-declaration (Article 62 UPCA, R. 209 RoP)
IPPT20240906, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Novartis v Celltrion
Application for preliminary measures unfounded: Defendant’s conduct does not already constitute an imminent infringement, i.e. offering of infringing product (Article 62(1) UPCA) (Article 25(a) UPCA). In order for a patent infringement to be considered imminent, there must be concrete indications in the overall circumstances that an infringement is imminent. It is sufficient for an offer if the act in question actually creates a demand for the product which the offer is likely to satisfy. Patent infringement of European bundle patents before the UPC is subject to uniform substantive law (article 25 UPCA) and uniform procedural law (article 62(1) UPCA) instead of different national laws.
IPPT20240906, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Novartis v Celltrion
Stay of provisional measures proceedings because of pending related action is incompatible with their urgent nature (Article 30(1) Brussels Ibis). No stay of provisional measures proceedings pursuant to Rule 295 RoP. R. 295 RoP refers unambiguously to actions and is therefore not applicable to applications for provisional measures. Interim award of legal costs by analogy with R. 211.1 (d) RoP. (Rule 118.5 RoP). Unintended regulatory gap in procedure by which the decision on costs is made (Rule 118.5 RoP) if the application for provisional measures is unsuccessful and the applicant refrains from filing an action on the merits.
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. 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.
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.
IPPT20240826, UPC CFI, LD Copenhagen, Hybridgenerator v HGSystem
Ex parte order for preservation of evidence and inspection of property granted (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP)
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.
PPT20240626, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Amgen
Application for provisional measures dismissed (R. 211.2 RoP). The court is not at all convinced that the opposition division of the EPO will share the opinion of the court on the question of claim construction and may decide that the patent is invalid (Article 62(4) UPCA, R. 211.2 RoP, Article 69 EPC). Likely insufficient disclosure of technical teaching (Article 83 EPC). The Applicant and its expert [...] concur that an antibody with the signal peptide could not have been used as drug (= pharmaceutical composition). It would exhibit an extreme tendency to aggregate under physiological buffer conditions due to their pronounced hydrophobic properties, which would prevent them from being formulated as pharmaceutical composition and used as a drug. Based on this, the technical teaching according to the patent might not be sufficiently disclosed and likely be revoked by the opposition division.
IPPT20240619, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Sibio – EP283
Preliminary measures denied. No sufficient degree of certainty that patent is valid (Article 62(4) UPCA; Rule 211(2) RoP). Added matter under the so-called “gold standard” disclosure test of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO for added matter (article 138(1)(c) EPC). Sufficient degree of certainty that the patent is valid (Rule 211(2) RoP) is lacking if the court considers it on the balance of probabilities to be more likely than not that the patent is not valid.The burden of presentation and proof with regard to the facts from which the lack of validity of the patent is derived and other circumstances favourable to the invalidity or revocation lies with the opponent (Art. 54 UPCA). The Court applies the so-called “gold standard” disclosure test of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO for added matter (article 138(1)(c) EPC) which is also the standard used in many Contracting Member States of the UPC. Abbott ordered to bear reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by Defendants in these proceedings, up to the applicable ceiling (Art. 69 UPCA; and R. 118.5 and R. 150.2 RoP); Even if the applicant were to be successful in the proceedings on the merits, it will still have to bear the costs of these proceedings as the unsuccessful party.
IPPT20240603, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Ballinno v UEFA
Application for provisional measures dismissed because of a lack of urgency from a temporal perspective; unreasonable delay in seeking provisional measures (Article 62 UPCA, Rule 209(2)(b) RoP, Rule 211 RoP). No necessary measures to clarify the alleged infringement and obtain the documents required to support its claims were taken between mid-November 2023 (when it became clear that a settlement was not within reach) and mid-February 2024. Local Division not convinced with sufficient certainty that the Defendants infringe the patent in suit (Article 62(4) UPCA, Rule 211(2) RoP; Article 69 EPC). The realization of several features of the patent claim is disputed between the parties (see below under IV. 2.). On summary examination, the Court finds that the attacked embodiment does not make direct or indirect literal use of claim 1 or 8 of the patent in suit (see below under IV. 3.). An infringement by equivalent means has also not been sufficiently demonstrated (see below under IV. 4.). […] it cannot be concluded that it is more likely than not that the attacked embodiment makes literal use of the teaching of patent claim 1 and/or 8, and their dependent claims 3, 7, 10 and 15. The facts of the case do not convince the Court that the attacked embodiment establishes an infringement by equivalent means. The technology used in the “Connected Ball Technology” does not make use of the same technical effect. Neither can a support vector machine nor the functioning of the “Connected Ball Technology” in particular be seen as equivalent to the patented com-parison of sound signals.
IPPT20240430, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Provisional cease and desist order, subject to Applicant providing € 2 million security (Article 62 UPCA, Rule 211 RoP).Non-compliance with the substantive requirements for an application for provisional measures (Rule 206.2(d) RoP) may be to the detriment of the Applicant. A possible infringement of R. 206.2(d) RoP does not therefore lead to the Application being inadmissible. Rebuttable presumption that a person registered as the patent proprietor in the respective national register is entitled to be registered (Rule 8.5(c) RoP, Rule 211.2 RoP, Article 47 UPCA,).Sufficient certainty of the validity of the patent for the ordering of provisional measures (Article 62 (4) UPCA, Rule 211.2 RoP). No award of damages possible in proceedings for provisional measures (article 62 UPCA, Rule 211(1) RoP). The content of provisional measures is exhaustively regulated in Art. 62 UPCA in conjunction with R. 211(1) RoP. The awarding of damages is not mentioned there. Its assertion is therefore reserved for the main proceedings. No security for legal costs of Defendant in urgent proceedings (Article 69(4)) UPCA, Rule 158 RoP, Rule 211.1(d) RoP). No reason for a decision on costs in proceedings for the ordering of provisional measures if, as in this case, a main proceedings follows the urgent proceedings. Unintended regulatory gap: interim award of costs in favour of Defendant not provided for in urgent proceedings (Rule 118.5 RoP, Rule 211.1 RoP)
IPPT20240409, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports
Provisional measures do not require risk taking by applicant but reliable knowledge of relevant facts (Article 47 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, Rule 213 RoP). The applicant only needs to call upon the court if he has reliable knowledge of all the facts that make legal action in the proceedings for an order for provisional measures promising and if he can make these facts credible: that the applicant is entitled to initiate the proceedings, that the patent in question is valid and that its right is infringed or threatened to be infringed.
IPPT20240129, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Request, with the consent of the parties, to assign an additional technically qualified judge to the panel for provisional measures application (article 8(5) UPCA). Appropriate because of the requested provisional measures, which requires examining reasonable doubts as to the validity of the patent in the technically demanding field of genetic engineering. The ordering of provisional measures can only be considered if the legal validity of the patent in dispute is sufficiently secured (Article 62 (4) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 211(2) RoP. It is therefore incumbent on the panel to obtain a sufficient picture of the legal validity on the basis of the parties' submissions and, in particular, to examine whether any objections raised against the validity of the patent in suit are likely to give rise to reasonable doubts as to the validity of the patent in suit (UPC_CFI_452/2023 (LK Düsseldorf), order of 11 December 2023 [IPPT20231211]). Although the involvement of a technically qualified judge ex officio is only mentioned in the Rules of Procedure in Rule 34 RoP and thus in the provisions on the main proceedings, Article 8(5) UPCA grants the panel in general and thus also in summary proceedings the right, after hearing the parties, to involve such a judge on its own initiative if it considers this appropriate (see also UPC_CFI_2/2023 (LK Munich) [IPPT20230919], UPC_CFI_214/2023 (LK Helsinki [IPPT20231020]).
IPPT20240125, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports
Request at panel’s initiative for a technically qualified judge in provisional measures proceedings (Rule 211(2) RoP, Article 8(5) UPCA, Article 62(4) UPCA). Sensible and advisable to also involve technically qualified judge already in the present proceedings because the respondents deal extensively with the legal status of the patent in dispute in support of their request for examination.
IPPT20231220, UPC CFI, LD Munich, SES-Imagotag v Hanshow
Provisional measure rejected: no sufficient certainty (“ausreichender Sicherheit”) that the products infringe the patent. if the antenna can be assigned to at least a significant part of the rear housing surface, a violation cannot be established (article 62 UPCA).
IPPT20231211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports
Ex parte provisional injunction under penalty of € 10.000 per product or € 30.000 per day and order to hand over devices, all subject to a security of € 500.000. Order to be served by claimant’s counsel. Direct use of the invention (article 25 UPCA). Element of suppression (“Unterdrückung”) is fulfilled. [...]. Indirect use of the invention (article 26 UPCA). Validity of the patent is sufficiently certain (article 62(4) UPCA, Rule 211(2) RoP). The fact that the patent in suit has not yet survived any adversarial legal validity proceedings does not preclude this. Even without such prior proceedings, the legal validity can be sufficiently secured. Summary examination of arguments brought in pending Swiss revocation proceedings. Urgency of the action (Rule 209(2)(b) RoP) The urgency required for the ordering of interim measures is only lacking if the injured party has been so negligent and hesitant in pursuing his claims that, from an objective point of view, it must be concluded that the injured party is not interested in enforcing his rights quickly, which is why it does not seem appropriate to allow him to claim interim legal protection (see also UPC_CFI 2/2023 (LK München), order of 19 September 2023, p. 84 f.).
IPPT20231205, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Nanostring
Recurring penalty payments not subject to enforcement requirements under national law nor notification by the claimant (Article 82(4) UPCA, Rule 118(8) RoP, Rule 354 RoP). Non-compliance with the terms of a UPC order (article 62 UPCA) is sanctioned with a penalty payment on the basis of article 82(4) UPCA alone and not subject to further enforcement requirements existing under national enforcement laws of contracting member states. (see also Local Division Düsseldorf, IPPT20231018, myStromer v Revolt Zycling). Rule 118(8) RoP – “orders shall be enforceable only after the claimant has notified the Court which part of the orders he intends to enforce” – does not apply to orders under Article 62 UPCA (provisional and protective measures). According to its clear wording ("The orders referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2(a)..."), Rule 118.8 of the Rules of Procedure does not apply to orders under Art. 62 UPCA.
IPPT20230919, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Nanostring
Provisional measure (article 62 UPCA, Rule 211 RoP). Sufficient degree of certainty that the patent is valid. Prevailing likelihood (“überwiegende Wahrscheinlichkeit”) – more likely than not – is required and sufficient. No unreasonable delay in seeking provisional measures. Applicants filed the request for an injunction on June 1, 2023, the earliest possible date for requesting provisional measures regarding a unitary patent with the UPC. The enforcement of a European patent without unitary effect must be carried out separately in all member states concerned and is therefore not an equivalent means of enforcing rights in the case of infringement compared to the enforcement of a unitary patent before the UPC. Interests of and potential harm for either of the parties. The Local Board considers that the interest of the right holder in not having his rights infringed outweighs the interest of the potential infringer in securing market shares now through the continuation of the infringement, which he can no longer obtain later through a possible licence agreement. The damage potentially suffered by the applicants as a result of a continuation of the infringing acts by the defendants is also difficult to compensate financially, as the acquisition transactions have a long-term effect; their reversal is much more difficult for the applicants than for the defendants who are contractually involved in these transactions.
IPPT20230622, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, myStromer v Revolt Zycling
Ex parte provisional injunction regarding Germany, the Netherlands, France and/or Italy and seizure of goods suspected of infringement.(article 62 and 29 UPC Agreement, Rules 206, 207, 209, 211 and 212 Rules of Procedure). Direct and literal infringement of the patent by the contested embodiment not substantially disputed in the protective letter. No exhaustion because respondent is not licensed to create from components supplied by Fairy Bike a combination falling within the scope of protection of the patent. Urgency of the action due to the already running leading European trade fair "Euro Bike 2023" and no earlier knowledge of detailed technical design of contested embodiment evident. Only provisional award of court costs, since the applicant did not explain in detail the amount of its costs quantified at EUR 16.000. Provisional measures granted without hearing the defendant because of likelihood of irreparable harm. It is obvious that the exhibition of the contested embodiment at this trade fair can lead to a hardly reversible loss of sales or market shares of the applicant. The products of both parties are substitutable, direct competitors.
