One of the remedies available to a patent holder against a patent infringer is an injunction to prevent future. Two types are generally available: a preliminary injunction and an injunction in proceedings on the merits. A preliminary injunction is a provisional measures which has to be confirmed in merits proceedings or otherwise ceases to have effect. In European patent law a (provisional) cross-border injunction is possible: a court in one European state can prohibit infringement in several other European states.
In June 2023, the UPC – at the Düsseldorf Local Division – granted its first ex parte provisional injunction (“PI”) in myStromer AG v Revolt Zycling AG (“myStromer v Revolt”), despite the defendant having previously filed a protective letter. A year on from that decision, and with only one other ex parte PI decision having…
The reasons for the decision are now available in the case of Ballino v UEFA and others, following an oral hearing on 3rd of June 2004 in the Hamburg local division. As was previously known, the panel comprising Presiding Judge Sabine Klepsch, Judge-rapporteur Dr. Stefan Schilling, and legally qualified Judge Samuel Granata dismissed the application…
In a decision issued today, the Düsseldorf Local Division has ordered the first ever permanent injunction at the UPC following a hearing on 16 May 2024. The injunction covers seven UPC member states: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxemburg and the Netherlands. Notably, Germany was not included in the claim. The patent in question in…
The recent rivaroxaban PI cases may have caused you to ask yourself whether the American Cynamid principles for determining whether or not to grant preliminary injunctive relief in the UK are dead or at least dying. In this article we consider the facts of the rivaroxaban PI applications and aim to tease out some principles…
It has been about a year since the UPC issued its first PI decision, making it a good time to reflect on the case law created so far. The year has seen PI applications being made in front of a range of Local Divisions, including Düsseldorf, The Hague, Helsinki, Vienna, and Hamburg, with most determined…
Introduction On 19 June 2024, The Hague Local Division handed down a judgment in a dispute brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. (“Abbott”) against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands BV (together “Sibio”). Abbott sought to obtain a preliminary injunction (as well as certain other provisional measures) against Sibio, relying on its patent EP 2…
On 30 April 2024, the UPC’s Local Division Düsseldorf handed down a new chapter in the 10x Genomics saga. This time the case is not against NanoString (see this post on the lost appeal) but against the US-based company Curio (see this post on the earlier language appeal in this case). The central issue before…
On 3 June 2024, the UPC’s Hamburg Local Division rejected a PI application against UEFA (Union des Associations Européennes de Football) and Kinexon GmBH (a technology partner) in regard to the use of video-assistance referee (VAR) technology at the upcoming European Championship in Germany. The application for preliminary relief concerned EP 1 944 067 (EP…
On the 23 May 2024, the English Patents Court dismissed an application by Lenovo for an interim injunction to prevent Ericsson infringing one of Lenovo’s patents pending the outcome of the UK proceedings ([2024] EWHC 1267 (Ch)). In particular, the Court found that the application failed on the basis that damages are an adequate remedy…
From the potpourri of decisions that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court handed down last year, I have selected one in subjective hindsight that I consider to be particularly relevant regarding further cases. The outcome of most decisions of the Swiss Federal Patent Court in 2023 heavily depended on the specific circumstances and the effects of…
