Home » UPC Knowledge Base » UPC monthly report 06/2024

UPC monthly report 06/2024

3 min Reading time
UPC monthly report 06/2024

Summary of the UPC month

It’s finally summer now, but that doesn’t mean the UPC is going on vacation. The contrary is true. In June, we saw an increase in infringement actions of over 15%.

  • Of the 21 infringement actions newly filed in June, 14 relate to IPC class H (Electricity), which thus strengthens its lead at the UPC.
  • 85% of the newly filed infringement actions went to the Local Divisions in Germany, which also seems to be a continuing trend.
  • This is also true for the Local Division in Munich, where about 40% of all infringement actions and application for provisional measures are pending.

But the UPC also broadens its international horizon: Lisbon received its first case, so that there is only one Local Division where no case was brought yet (Ljubljana).

This is a remarkable success and shows that the UPC is now truly becoming a European Court.

A fact which is also confirmed by Romania having ratified the UPCA on May 31, 2024, and the Central Division Milan having opened its doors on June 27, 2024.

Key decisions in a nutshell

The key decisions of the month are dealing with:

(1) The legal interest required for an intervention

An intervener must have a direct interest in the issuance of the order requested by the supported party. A position that is merely similar to that of the parties is not sufficient. A FRAND defense, which is also substantively directed against the potential intervener, constitutes a corresponding direct interest.

(2) The question of (non-)bifurcation

The question of hearing the infringement action as well as the counterclaim for revocation together can be decided before the conclusion of the written proceedings, as long as the parties are heard beforehand. Especially if the complexity of the technology concerned and the number of attacks on validity are comparatively low, efficiency and consistency in decision-making speak against bifurcation.

(3) The extension of time limits with regard to confidentiality measures

If access to a written submission in redacted form is restricted to the opposing counsel, this regularly justifies an extension of the deadline for a respective reply. Since the deadline for the reply starts to lapse even though no natural person of the party belongs to the confidentiality club yet, the interests of the party must be accounted for by extending the deadline.

Remarks

On July 3, 2024 the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf issues the first substantive decision on the merits granting a permanent injunction (UPC_CFI_7/2023). Many more are just around the corner and we are looking forward to an exciting time which will set the course for the UPC’s continued acceptance in the global patent community.


Was the article helpful?

1

Categories


Tags

  • Tobias Wuttke

    Attorney-at-Law (Rechtsanwalt), Certified IP lawyer, UPC Representative, Partner

  • Tilman Müller-Stoy

    Attorney-at-Law (Rechtsanwalt), Certified IP lawyer, Commercial Mediator (MuCDR), UPC Representative, Partner

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field