Helsinki LD solves part of less-frequented UPC venues’ chicken-and-egg problem

Context: The case between AIM Sport Development AG and TGI Sport (formerly Supponor) is among the first in Unified Patent Court (UPC) history, with a preliminary injunction hearing in September 2023 shortly after the court opened its doors. The Helsinki Local Division (LD) initially dismissed the case over opt-out withdrawal issues, but the Court of Appeal (CoA) revived it (November 13, 2024 ip fray article). The patent concerns digital overlay technology for perimeter advertising in sports broadcasts, allowing region-specific ads to replace what is physically shown in the stadium.

What’s new: The Helsinki LD yesterday dismissed AIM Sport’s infringement action for a second time, finding neither literal infringement nor infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents (DoE) by TGI’s SVB System. The court upheld the patent over TGI’s revocation counterclaim. The combined value of the case reached the UPC’s €1.2 million ceiling for recoverable costs. The most fundamental holding is relevant to the ongoing UPC docket distribution debate (PDF).

Direct impact: Both sides are expected to appeal. AIM Sport will likely challenge the non-infringement finding, while TGI is expected to pursue invalidity again. If the CoA were to reverse on infringement while upholding validity, it would then have to address AIM Sport’s “springboard” theory: whether TGI’s newer AI-based AIR System, trained using data from the older SVB System, can be enjoined even though it does not independently infringe.

Wider ramifications: 

• The decision’s real significance is procedural. With no CoA guidance on the DoE, and both parties relying on the Hague LD’s four-part test from Plant-e v. Bioo (November 22, 2024 ip fray article), Helsinki adopted that framework. This comes at a time when the UPC is still working toward a consistent equivalence standard (June 10, 2025 ip fray article).
• The court held that where the CoA has not spoken, LDs should follow existing Court of First Instance (CFI) case law in the interest of legal certainty and predictability, unless there are compelling reasons to diverge.
• This directly addresses the “chicken-and-egg” problem facing less-frequented venues. By signaling alignment with established CFI approaches, Helsinki reduces uncertainty for litigants. That, in turn, may make smaller divisions more attractive and contribute, at least incrementally, to balancing the much-debated distribution of UPC cases, where roughly 70% of UPC cases are still filed in Germany. Divisions with a scarcity of cases are less predictable until there is a richer body of CoA case law. But if a claimant contemplating a filing in such a venue knows that there is a decent chance of case law from other CFI divisions being adopted, one of the reasons for suing in a venue with a more developed body of local case law goes away, at least in part.