ORD_22208/2025 | EP4072364 | UPC Decision Search | United Patents

This Month

Year to Date

All Time

Custom

Reset all filters

	Type Order Decision	Reference	Court Division Brüssel Brussels Copenhagen Den Haag Düsseldorf Hamburg Helsinki Lisbon Lissabon Luxembourg Luxemburg Mailand Mannheim Milan München Munich Nordic Baltic Regional Division Paris The Hague Vienna			Tags
3 June, 2025	Order	ORD_22208/2025	München (DE) Lokalka…	EP4072364	Art 43 UPCA ...	Please log in to add tags.	Please log in to add notes. Please log in to add tags. Show on UPC ORD_22208/2025 3 June, 2025 Order Summary (AI generated) Parties Meril Life Sciences P, Dainese S.p.A., XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH v. t. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril GmbH, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH Registry Information Registry Number: App_21220/2025 Court Division: München (DE) Lokalkammer Type of Action: Generic application Language of Proceedings: EN Patent at issue EP4072364 Sections Keywords (EN) R 353 RoP Headnotes (EN) - As a provision of an international treaty concluded between States, Art. 32(1) UPCA shall be interpretated in accordance with the principles of customary international law, which are part of the EU legal order. - The absence of any temporal limitation of the rules on competence under Art. 32(1) UPCA reflects the object and purpose of the Agreement which is to create a court common to the Contracting Member States integrated into their judicial system and to transfer (exclusive) competence to said court for those actions and counterclaims listed under Art. 32 (1) UPCA, in order to prevent the difficulties caused by a fragmented market for patents in Europe and the variations between national court systems. - In the absence of any provision contrary thereto, these object and purpose of the UPCA do neither suggest nor imply any temporal limitation of the Court. - Art. 3 UPCA does not address the temporal scope of application of the Agreement in relation to acts infringing the rights listed therein. It therefore leaves open whether acts having occurred before the entry into force are within the scope of application of the Agreement. - During the transitional period set out under Art. 83 UPCA, and unless the patent has been opted out from the exclusive competence of the Court pursuant to Art. 83(3) UPCA, the (exclusive) competence of the UPC coexists with a parallel competence of national courts before which an action for infringement of a European patent may still be brought. Although it provides for a concurrent competence during the transitional period according to which the patent holder has the option to initiate infringement proceedings either before the UPC or before a national court, said option is limited to the choice of forum and does not provide, as a result of such a choice, for a partial or limited competence of the elected court, whether as to the subject matter (the patent infringement) of the action or as to the time period for which the chosen court is competent. - The determination of the competence of the Court as of the date of lodging the action, including for acts of infringement that have occurred before the entry into force of the Agreement, does not contradict the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties under the principles of customary international law and Art. 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties done at Vienna on 23 May 1969 (“VCLT”). - In case of an effective withdrawal from an effective opt-out, the UPC is competent to decide on alleged acts of infringement which have occurred during the time period between the date of the opt-out and that of the withdrawal. DEUTSCH: Als Bestimmung eines zwischen Staaten geschlossenen völkerrechtlichen Übereinkommen ist Art. 32(1) EPGÜ im Einklang mit den Grundsätzen des Völkergewohnheitsrechts auszulegen, die Bestandteil der Rechtsordnung der EU sind. Das Fehlen einer zeitlichen Begrenzung der Zuständigkeitsregeln gemäß Art. 32(1) EPGÜ entspricht dem Inhalt und Zweck des Übereinkommens, ein gemeinsames Gericht für die Vertragsmitgliedstaaten zu schaffen, das Teil ihres Rechtswesens ist, und diesem Gericht die (ausschließliche) Zuständigkeit für die in Art. 32 (1) EPGÜ aufgeführten Klagen und Widerklagen zu übertragen, um den Schwierigkeiten vorzubeugen, die durch einen fragmentierten Patentmarkt in Europa und die Unterschiede zwischen den nationalen Gerichtssystemen verursacht werden. In Ermangelung einer gegenteiligen Bestimmung legen dieses Ziel und dieser Zweck eine zeitliche Begrenzung des Gerichts weder nahe noch deuten sie diese an. Art. 3 EPGÜ befasst sich nicht mit dem zeitlichen Geltungsbereich des Übereinkommens in Bezug auf Handlungen, die die darin aufgeführten Rechte verletzen. Er lässt daher offen, ob Handlungen vor Inkrafttreten des Übereinkommens, in den Geltungsbereich des EPGÜ fallen. Während der in Art. 83 EPGÜ festgelegten Übergangszeit und sofern für das Patent die ausschließliche Zuständigkeit des Gerichts nicht gemäß Art. 83(3) EPGÜ ausgeschlossen worden ist, besteht die (ausschließliche) Zuständigkeit des EPG neben einer parallelen Zuständigkeit der nationalen Gerichte, vor denen eine Klage wegen Verletzung eines europäischen Patents weiterhin erhoben werden kann. Obwohl das EPGÜ während der Übergangszeit eine parallele Zuständigkeit vorsieht, wonach der Patentinhaber die Möglichkeit hat, ein Verletzungsverfahren entweder vor dem EPG oder vor einem nationalen Gericht einzuleiten, beschränkt sich diese Möglichkeit auf die Wahl des Gerichtsstands und sieht als Folge einer solchen Wahl keine teilweise oder eingeschränkte Zuständigkeit des gewählten Gerichts vor, weder hinsichtlich des Gegenstands (der Patentverletzung) der Klage noch hinsichtlich des Zeitraums, für den das gewählte Gericht zuständig ist. Die Feststellung der Zuständigkeit des Gerichts ab dem Zeitpunkt der Einreichung der Klage auch für Verletzungshandlungen, die vor dem Inkrafttreten des Übereinkommens erfolgt sind, widerspricht nicht dem Grundsatz der Nichtrückwirkung von Verträgen nach den Grundsätzen des Gewohnheitsrechtlich anerkannten Völkerecht und Art. 28 des Wiener Übereinkommens über das Recht der Verträge, abgeschlossen in Wien am 23. Mai 1969 („WÜRV“). Im Falle eines wirksamen Rücktritts vom Ausschluss der ausschließlichen Zuständigkeit des EPG (“opt-out”) ist das EPG für die Entscheidung über vermeintliche Verletzungen zuständig, die im Zeitraum zwischen dem Datum des Inkrafttretens der Ausschlusses und dem Datum des Rücktritts erfolgt sind. Keywords (EN) Competence of the Court, Scope of application of the UPC Agreement, transitional regime, opt-out from the exclusive competence of the Court, withdrawal of an opt-out. DEUTSCH: Zuständigkeit des Gerichts; Geltungsbereich des EPG-Übereinkommens; Übergangsregelung; Inanspruchnahme der Ausnahmeregelung betreffend die ausschließliche Zuständigkeit des Gerichts; Rucktritt von einer Inanspruchnahme. Cited Legal Standards Art. 1 EPGÜ Art. 21 EPGÜ Art. 25 et seq. EPGÜ Art. 2(g) EPGÜ Art. 32(1)(a) 83(4) EPGÜ Art. 32(1)(a) EPGÜ Art. 32(1) (a) (f) EPGÜ Art. 32 (1) EPGÜ Art. 32(1) EPGÜ Art. 32(2) EPGÜ Art. 32 EPGÜ Art. 3(c) EPGÜ Art. 3 EPGÜ Art 43 UPCA Art. 56 EPGÜ Art. 56 et seq. EPGÜ Art 76(1) UPCA Art. 83(1) EPGÜ Art. 83(3) EPGÜ Art. 83(4) EPGÜ Art. 83 EPGÜ R. 19.1(a) VerfO R. 19.1 (a) VerfO R. 19.1 VerfO R. 19 VerfO R. 266.1 VerfO R. 266.5, Satz 1, VerfO R. 266.5 VerfO R 295(d) ROP R. 323 VerfO R. 5.7 VerfO R. 5 der Verfahrensordnung (im Folgenden 'VerfO Rule 295 (d) RoP Documents Download Order (EN) Download Order (EN) Download Order (DE) Download Order (EN) Add a custom note or summary to this decision Styles Text Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Bold ⌘B Italic ⌘I Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S Bullet list Ordered list Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B Insert link ⌘K Insert link Unlink Align Left Center Right Milan Local Division ACTION N.: 45469 / 2024;65482/2024 UPC_CFI N: 472/2024, CFI 181/2025 TYPE OF ACTION: action for infringement ad revocation action APPLICATION N.: 24798/2024, 24801/2024 24803/2024; 25321/2025 TYPE OF APPLICATION: rule 295,lett. d ROP ORDER N.: ORD_26013/2025 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Milan Local Division issued on2 June 2025 concerning a joint request for stay of proceedings HEADNOTES: 1.Where all parties request the stay of proceedings pursuant rule 295, lett. d, RoP, the Court has no discretion, but It despite the use of the word 'may' at the beginning of the Rule. This interpretation is based on the following principles: the parties are free to determine the subject matter of their case (Art 43 UPCA); the Court must decide in accordance with the requests submitted by the parties (Art 76(1) UPCA). These conclusions also apply to only one of the two patents involved. The proceedings may continue in respect of the other patent, in respect of which infringement proceedings are pending and in relation to which the parties have an interest in concluding the written procedure within the time limits set. KEYWORDS: RULE 295, LETT. D), ROP, ART. 43 UPCA APPLICANTS All parties in the proceedings brought by Dainese S.p.A. Claimant against Alpinestars S.p.A. Defendant 1 Alpinestars Research S.p.A. Defendant 2 Motocard Bike S.l . Defendant 3 PATENT AT ISSUE: Patent no. Proprietor/s EP4072364 Dainese S.p.A. EP3498117 Dainese S.p.A. DECIDING JUDGE Judge rapporteur, Alima Zana alter consulting the panel LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English ORDER Summary of facts On 8 August 2024, Dainese spa filed an infringement action against six defendants, claiming that the products "Tech Air 3 System" and "Tech Air 10 Race System" fall within the scope of protection granted by the patents n. EP 3498117 ("EP '117") and EP 4072364 ("EP '364"). Claimant withdrew the action against Defendants 3), 4) and 5), and the Court declared the proceedings closed in respect of such parties. Defendants 1), 2) and 6) each filed a counterclaim for revocation against both EP '117 and EP '364. By decision of 13 February 2025, the Board of Appeal of the EPO ordered that EP '117 is maintained in an amended form and remitted the proceedings to the Opposition Division to allow Dainese to adapt the description of the patent in accordance with the amended claims. On 27 February 2025, the Claimant filed an application under R. 263(3), requesting the Court's leave to limit a claim by excluding all the arguments, requests and pleadings related to the alleged infringement of EP '117. By order n. 10964/2025, on 7 April 2025 the Court granted the Claimant's request, thereby excluding all the arguments, requests and pleadings related to the infringement of EP '117. Therefore, as regards EP '117 the proceedings before this Court are now limited to the revocation counterclaim. On 23-27 May 2025 all Parties field an application under rule 295, lett. D, ROP requesting the Court to order that: The proceedings CC_65482/2024, CC_67493/2024 and CC_9997/2025, as well as the corresponding applications to amend the patent are stayed, insofar as they concern EP '117 (and not EP '364). The deadlines for filing arguments, requests and pleadings related to the infringement and the validity of EP'364 shall remain unchanged. The stay shall remain in effect until either party notifies the Court of the final decision issued by the Opposition Division of the EPO. General considerations This Order is adopted having regards to: (i) the following principles set out in the Preamble 2 of the RoP proportionality, flexibility and fairness; (ii) the article 43 UPCA ( Case management ' The Court shall actively manage the cases before it in accordance with the Rules of Procedure without impairing the freedom of the parties to determine the subject-matter of, and the supporting evidence for, their case'; (iii) The Rule 295 (d) RoP '(the Court may stay the proceedings " at the joint request of the parties) , including with respect to only one of the two patents involved in the case. According to the doctrine, where all parties request the stay of proceedings, the Court must order the stay. despite the use of the word 'may' at the beginning of the Rule, Is has no discretion . This interpretation is based on the following principles: a. the parties are free to determine the subject matter of their case (Art 43 UPCA); b. the Court must decide in accordance with the requests submitted by the parties (Art 76(1) UPCA). When jointly requesting a stay of proceedings, the parties state that they have no interest in the proceedings continuing at that time. The Court is bound to act according to the request A joint declaration of the parties or the submission of a request by one party referring to the corresponding request of the other party is necessary. (iv) The UPC case law under R 295(d) ROP (see, inter alia , case n. CT_590145/2023, 29 October 2024, Dolby v HP , LD Düsseldorf). The case at hand 11.The Court notes that: -a stay of the counterclaim proceedings and of the applications to amend the patent EP '117 is enable a more efficient management of the proceedings and avoid unnecessary activities by the parties and the Court. -All Parties agreed that the exchange of further briefs concerning the validity of EP '117 and the auxiliary requests filed by the Claimant in relation to EP '117 would be premature and inefficient at this stage; -There are no pending infringement proceedings or other circumstances that would balance against a stay. 12.These conclusions also apply to only one of the two patents involved in the case, here EP '117 and not EP '364. Indeed, only EP '117 is not yet in its final version, since the Claimant will have to adapt the description of the patent before the Opposition Division of the EPO in a manner consistent with the decision of the Boards of Appeal. Specifically, by 13 July 2025, the Claimant will have to file an amended version of the description of the patent (see the decision of the EPO Opposition Divisi; opponent Alpinestars S.p.A. will then be allowed to file its observations, and the Opposition Division . will issue its decision. 14.This situation does not apply to EP '364, for which infringement proceedings are pending, in respect of which the parties have an interest in concluding the written procedure within the time limits set. 15. The Court notes that: -A partial stay of the counterclaim proceedings and of the applications to amend the patent EP '117 is enable a more efficient management of the proceedings and avoid unnecessary activities by the parties and the Court. -All Parties agreed that the exchange of further briefs concerning the validity of EP '117 and the auxiliary requests filed by the Claimant in relation to EP '117 would be premature and inefficient at this stage; -There are no pending infringement proceedings or other circumstances that would balance against a stay. -Whether or not a stay is granted depends on the balance of interests of the parties and the specific circumstances of the case. it follows that the deadlines for filing arguments, requests and pleadings related to the infringement and the validity of EP'364 shall remain unchanged. In view of the specified circumstances of the case, the application to stay proceedings shall be granted. ORDER the Court to order that: The proceedings CC_65482/2024, CC_67493/2024 and CC_9997/2025, as well as the corresponding applications to amend the patent are stayed, insofar as they concern EP '117 (and not EP '364). 2 The stay shall remain in effect until either party notifies the Court of the final decision issued by the Opposition Division of the EPO. 3.The deadlines for filing arguments, requests and pleadings related to the infringement and the validity of EP'364 shall remain unchanged. Issued on 2 June 2025 The Judge rapporteur Alima Zana

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 results