7 August 2023
Authored and Edited by Dr. Antje Brambrink
After an application was filed on June 22, 2023, the Local Division Düsseldorf (Germany) issued one of the Unified Patent Court‘s (UPC) first preliminary injunctions on the same day. It relates to the dispute between myStromer AG against Revolt Zycling AG on infringement of the European Patent EP 2 546 134 which protects a “Combination structure of bicycle frame and motor hub”. According to its wording, the injunction covers the UPC member states, where the patent is in force, in particular Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Italy.
The reasoning is very concise. The Respondent had previously submitted a protective brief raising defenses such as exhaustion. After confirming infringement, the judges briefly dealt with the defense arguments and rejected them without hearing the Respondent (ex parte injunction). The Court considered the case urgent (Rule 209.2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure) due to an upcoming trade fair where the attacked embodiments were supposed to be shown. The Division held the patent’s validity was sufficiently secured. Neither opposition nor nullity proceedings had been brought and the Respondent had not provided relevant prior art. Hence the Court granted the injunction.
3 Take Aways
The UPC is fully prepared to deal with applications for preliminary injunctions in an extremely speedy manner. Injunctions may even be granted within one day , depending on the urgency of the case.
The judges have discretion when deciding on the preliminary injunction, in particular whether they want to hear opposing party or not. If applicants can build a strong urgency case, chances for an ex parte injunction should be good, provided that all other requirements for its grant are met.
The protective brief did not prevent the grant of an injunction. It may have even triggered the issuance of an ex parte injunction since the Court was able to deal with the Respondent’s defense arguments. Potential infringers who fear the grant of a preliminary injunction should thus carefully weigh the pros and cons when considering such a brief.
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March 2024
April 30, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Courts and Legislators Addressing the Right of Publicity in the Age of AI
April 30, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.