6 February 2025
Local Division Mannheim, Panasonic v Oppo
Less redacted SEP decision
Comment
- This is the final public version of the decision of 22 November 2024 after the parties provided comments on what should remain redacted (i.e. not published due to confidentiality). I refer to my comments on the 22 November 2024 decision (published in Week 47, 2024).
In this case, the defendant asked at the last moment to postpone the decision because the parties were settling. The Court refused (see the order of 22 November, published in Week 47, 2024). The parties then settled after the decision. The Court rightly decided that there was no reason to reimburse court fees (see the order of 3 February, published in Week 6, 2025).
7 February 2025
Milan Local Division, Dainese v Alpinestars
UPC_CFI_472/2024
Rule 9 RoP – Request for Extension of Deadline
- The Defense to Counterclaim for Revocation and Reply to Statement of Defence were due on 13 February 2025.
- On 13 February, the Board of Appeal was scheduled to hear an opposition against one of the two patents invoked by Dainese.
- Dainese requested an extension.
Judge-Rapporteur (JR)
Granted a two-week extension.
Comment
- A very logical decision, which (as the JR rightly points out) makes for a far more efficient proceeding, assuming the Board of Appeal revokes or amends the patent. In that case, the pleadings due on 13 February would either not be necessary or would not make sense.
- Quite frankly, I don’t understand why the defendants were objecting to such a sensible request: clearly it was going to be granted.
- The Milan Court has a habit of citing the full texts of all relevant Articles/Rules, which indeed makes life easier for readers who don’t know all the provisions by heart!
8 February 2025
Local Division Munich, Motorola v Ericsson
Rule 262A RoP
Judge-Rapporteur (JR):
- Dismisses Ericsson’s R. 262A RoP request, which would have prevented Motorola from discussing and disclosing to its parent company, Lenovo, information originating from Lenovo itself.
- The JR stated—correctly, in my opinion—that Lenovo and Motorola must be seen as the same entity in this context. An order preventing a party from disclosing its own information makes no sense!
Comment:
- This seems like an entirely logical decision. R. 262A RoP governs the obligation to keep confidential information that belongs to the requesting party and which that party wants to introduce as evidence in the litigation.
- You cannot request an order that forces the other party to keep its own information confidential. That is entirely up to the party that "owns" the information.
11 February 2025
Local Division Helsinki, AIM v Supponor
Amendment of claim
Background:
- The Helsinki Local Division initially dismissed AIM's case due to lack of jurisdiction following a preliminary objection.
- The Court of Appeal overturned the decision, and the case did not proceed during the appeal.
AIM requested:
- to add a defendant.
- to get an injunction for Spain.
- to add companies whose services are used to infringe.
- to update the Statement of Claim to include equivalence arguments in light of decisions from other Divisions.
All requests were granted.
Comment:
The decision is practical. The case was effectively suspended for almost a year due to the preliminary objection appeal. In that time, many developments occurred that were unforeseen when the original Statement of Claim was filed. It was both efficient and logical to allow an updated Statement of Claim rather than requiring a completely new case (which would involve new service issues, etc.). This was ultimately the most efficient course of action. As defendant was granted three months to answer its rights were fully respected.
10 February 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, Dolby v Asus
Settlement
- The parties followed Rule 265 RoP, requesting a Court decision allowing them to withdraw their claims, with each party bearing its own costs.
- As the settlement was reached before the end of the written procedure, the parties were entitled to a 60% reimbursement of court costs.
- The Court ordered the Registry to process the reimbursement “as quickly as possible”.
Comment:
- As I have said many times before: settlements handled via R. 265 RoP by parties and Divisions are, in my view, a waste of time. This should be a point of attention in any future review of the Rules of Procedure.
- The same might apply to the reimbursement of court fees, which, in my view, is overly generous.
- If a party chooses to litigate as a means to ultimately reach a settlement, then that litigation serves a valuable purpose—so why shouldn't they pay for it?
- If a party wants to avoid court fees, then they should settle without involving the Court.