This is a summary of developments in and around the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the week since our February 15, 2025 UPC Roundup.
1. “Obey the law” PI in Abbott v. SiBio after CoA reverses The Hague LD
Due to technical maintenance that took the UPC longer than expected, the preliminary injunction (PI; formally called “provisional measures” in the UPC) in Abbott v. SiBio that was entered the week before came to light only this week. The Hague Local Division (LD) had denied the injunction, but the Court of Appeal (CoA) reversed.
It bears mentioning a few aspects of the decision that are potentially controversial.
First, in the United States such “obey the law” injunctions are routinely overturned (May 16, 2022 Comparative Patent Remedies blog post by Professor Thomas Cotter).
Second, counsel for the defendant left a couple of comments on our LinkedIn page that we would like to share here, not because we intend to declare ourselves in agreement but because these may be valuable insights for other practitioners:
“Maybe the even bigger flaw of this decision is the UPC CoA‘s take on #urgency in PI proceedings. The CoA applies the Dutch approach, not the strict German approach, and believes that even several months after first knowledge of an allegedly infringing embodiment a case is still urgent. This will lead to a further flooding of the UPC with cases which are not urgent at all and which should be dealt with in main infringement proceedings which only take one year at the UPC.
“I believe the biggest news of this case is that re added subject-matter the UPC deviates from the gold standard of the EPO („directly and unambiguously derivable“) and applies a wishy-washy approach which will lead to legal uncertainty regarding added subject-matter. Forecast: this will not be the final word of the UPC CoA on the added subject-matter test.”
Dr. Thomas Gniadek (Simmons & Simmons)
Counsel for SiBio
2. Third anti-antisuit injunction (AASI) in Nokia v. SUNMI: Munich LD
Nokia obtained an anti-antisuit injunction (AASI) from the Munich LD against Chinese payment terminal maker SUNMI. There is no indication of the latter having sought a Chinese antisuit injunction (ASI), but it started a global FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) rate-setting procedure, which could lead to a forcible global license and give rise to antisuit injunctions.
The UPC’s zero tolerance policy regarding foreign interference will sooner or later have to be applied to the interim license problem that is reaching downright irrational proportions in the UK (February 18, 2025 ip fray article).
3. Cisco cleared of infringement of licensing firm’s patent: Hamburg LD
Irish non-practicing entity Lionra has failed to prove that Cisco infringes its patent, but at least the patent was held valid.
4. Standing is not a jurisdictional question according to Munich LD
In GXD-Bio v. Myriad, Presiding Judge Ulrike Voss (“Voß” in German) of the Munich LD’s second panel decided, in her capacity as judge-rapporteur, that questions regarding a plaintiff’s standing to assert the patent-in-suit are not a question that can be resolved by means of a jurisdictional objection (PDF).
5. Deposit can be replaced with bond on case-by-case basis: Dusseldorf LD
In 10x Genomics v. Curio, the Dusseldorf LD has allowed the substitution of a bond for a deposit, but it depends on the specific circumstances. Here, a deposit was made because it was the fastest way to enforce an injunction, but later on a bond was preferred.
6. Other UPC news
6.1 Temporary outage of public access to CMS
For about a week starting on February 13, the UPC’s website did not provide public access to the case registry, and no new decisions and orders were uploaded. We heard that some technical maintenance operation took longer than anticipated.
Some other maintenance took place today:
It is easy to see the connection between the UPC and the EPO, but the ICC (on which the United States has imposed sanctions) is the “odd man out” on that list.
6.2 First Nordic-Baltic UPC Meeting
Yesterday, the first Nordic-Baltic UPC Meeting took place in Stockholm, Sweden. According to Taylor Wessing’s Dr. Wim Maas (LinkedIn post), 60 patent professionals attended.
7. Recent and upcoming hearings
Recent hearings:
- Thursday, February 20, 2025: Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v. Respondents (Coa, Rule 220.1 RoP appeal)
Upcoming hearings:
- Monday, February 24, 2025: Ballinno B.V. v. Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) and Kinexon GmbH (CoA, Rule 220.1 RoP appeal)
- Tuesday, February 25, 2025: Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS a.o. v. Amgen Inc. a.o. (Dusseldorf LD)
- Thursday, March 13, 2025: Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v. Laser Components SAS (intervening party: Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.) (Paris LD)
- Thursday, March 20, 2025: Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v. Siltronic AG & Hinterberger GmbH & Co. KG (Dusseldorf LD; application for an order for inspection)
- Friday, March 21, 2025: Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v. Ballinno B.V. (CD Paris; revocation action)
- Tuesday, March 25, 2025:
- Xiaomi v. Daedalus Prime (revocation; CD Paris)
- Viking Arm AS v. Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Inc., Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH (Nordic-Baltic RD)
- Thursday, March 27, 2025: Lindal Dispenser GmbH v. Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited (revocation; CD Paris)