Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Vienna Local Division » LD Vienna, January 15, 2025, order in first instance on infringement, UPC_CFI_33/2024

LD Vienna, January 15, 2025, order in first instance on infringement, UPC_CFI_33/2024

4 min Reading time

Key takeaways

If the allegation is made in the proceedings that the patent is invalid, the statement of defence must contain a counterclaim for revocation of the patent against the proprietor of the patent (R. 25 RoP, R. 42 RoP). Without such counterclaim, the invalidity defence (here: exceeding the original disclosure) is not to be addressed.

A permanent removal from the distribution channels and recall are separate, distinct measures. The permanent removal accompanies the recall, whereby removal can only be considered if the infringer has the actual and legal means to do so. This must be considered when determining concrete and sufficiently specified measures for a removal.

Art. 80 UPCA leaves it to the discretion of the court whether or not to authorise the publication of a decision. For such an order to be issued, the plaintiff’s interest in publication must outweigh the possible (adverse) consequences of such publication for the defendant. As a rule, such publication can only be considered if the protection of the plaintiff is not already guaranteed by other measures (see UPC_CFI_373/2023 (LK Düsseldorf), decision of 31 October 2024 – SodaStream v. Aarke; UPC_CFI_16/2024 (LK Düsseldorf), decision of 14 January 2025 – Ortovox v. Mammut). When exercising discretion, the purposes pursued by Art 80 UPCA (deterrence of future infringers and raising public awareness) must also be taken into account. However, this requires a submission as to what justifies the preventive interest in the specific case of infringement.

Although the RoP do not provide for a separate cost determination for a third-party intervention, it can be inferred from the principle of R. 315.4 RoP that the intervener is also treated as a party with regard to costs. In the event that the party supported by the intervener loses – as in the specific case – a proportionate contribution to costs can be justified if the intervention has caused additional expenses to the winning party. In any case, it must bear its own costs if it loses.

Division

LD Vienna

UPC number

UPC_CFI_33/2024

Type of proceedings

Infringement proceedings

Parties

Plaintiff: SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH

Defendant: STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH

Intervener: Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.

Patent(s)

EP 2 643 717

Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 25 RoP, Rule 42 RoP, Article 25 lit a UPCA, Article 80 UPCA, Rule 315.4 RoP


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field