ARTICLE
13 November 2024

LD Milan, November 4, 2024, Decision, UPC_CFI_241/2023

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
There is no basis for a stay (R. 295(m) RoP) of an infringement action, where the defendant has acknowledged the validity of the patent and infringement without exception...
Italy Intellectual Property

Key takeaways

No stay of proceedings due to parallel counterclaim for revocation

There is no basis for a stay (R. 295(m) RoP) of an infringement action, where the defendant has acknowledged the validity of the patent and infringement without exception, for the purpose of awaiting the Court's decision on the counterclaim for revocation introduced in a parallel suit involving the same patent brought against a different defendant.

Promotional activities at a trade fair can constitute patent infringement

The Court held that the Defendant's promotion of the allegedly infringing machine at a trade fair, even without actual sales, constituted infringement under Article 64(2a) UPCA.

Permanent injunction granted despite implementer's promise to cease

The Court granted the Claimant's request for a permanent injunction, emphasizing that a mere promise from the Defendant to stop infringing is insufficient to preclude an injunction under Article 63(1) UPCA. With respect to patent infringement that has already been established, it is up to the Defendant in infringement to prove that there is no risk of recurrence; with respect to future conduct, the burden of proof is on the Claimant.

Proportionality guides remedy decisions

The Court's decisions on the penalty amount and the rejection of the publication order demonstrate a clear commitment to the principle of proportionality. The penalty under Article 63(2) UPCA was tailored to the specific circumstances of the case, considering the value of the infringing product and industry norms. Similarly, the Court declined to order publication under Article 80 UPCA, finding it disproportionate given the limited scope of the infringement.

Division

Local Division Milan

UPC number

UPC_CFI_241/2023

Type of proceedings

Infringement Action

Parties

Claimant: Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG

Defendant: Bhagat Textile Engineers

Patent(s)

EP2145848

Body of legislation / Rules

Rules 119, 295(m) RoP, Art. 64(2a), 63(1), 63(2), 80 UPCA

LD Milan_UPC CFI 241 2023_2024-11-04 Download

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More