- with readers working within the Oil & Gas industries
- within Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Dismissal due to lack of substantiation after contest of facts
Defendants specifically denied that their products' functionalities in question are incorporated in the source code of the attacked embodiments. Claimant fails to substantiate in more detail, why it is of the opinion, that this is not true or relevant and point to specific facts (R. 171 RoP) and to offer adequate proof for such factual statement. In the absence of such substantiation, the infringement action has to be dismissed.
A counterclaim for revocation can be made conditional on a finding of infringement
The court admitted the condition, not to decide on the counterclaim for revocation if the infringement action is dismissed, reasoning that such procedural moves are not alien to the Rules of Procedure (e.g., R. 30.1.c, R. 118.2.a RoP). The court found it did not unreasonably hinder the claimant (R. 263 RoP) and that no decision on validity was required.
2. Division
Local Division Mannheim
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_414/2024 (Infringement Action)
UPC_CFI_729/2024 (Counterclaim for Revocation)
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement action and conditional counterclaim for revocation
5. Parties
Claimant: Centripetal Limited
Defendants: Keysight Technologies, Inc., Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 821 580
7. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 171 RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]