ARTICLE
30 January 2025

UPC Court Of Appeal: Directors Are Not Intermediaries

MC
Marks & Clerk

Contributor

Marks & Clerk is one of the UK’s foremost firms of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys. Our attorneys and solicitors are wired directly into the UK’s leading business and innovation economies. Alongside this we have offices in 9 international locations covering the EU, Canada and Asia, meaning we offer clients the best possible service locally, nationally and internationally.
On 29 October 2024, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision on a request for suspensive effect concerning an order by the Court of First Instance...
United Kingdom Intellectual Property

On 29 October 2024, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision on a request for suspensive effect concerning an order by the Court of First Instance in a patent infringement dispute between Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Plaintiff) and several entities within the Belkin corporation, including its managing directors (Defendants).

In earlier proceedings at first instance, the Munich Local Division issued an order granting the remedies sought by Philips in their infringement claim and dismissing Belkin's counterclaim for revocation. The order imposed restrictions on Belkin's activities, including those of its managing directors, related to the disputed embodiments.

Belkin appealed, requesting that the first instance decision be given suspensive effect and, inter alia, arguing that the ruling concerning its managing directors was incorrect and unenforceable, as, contrary to the opinion of the Munich Local Division, the directors could not be classified as "intermediaries" under Article 63 of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), given that the companies within the Belkin group could not be considered "third parties" under the provision.

In its decision of 29 October 2024 the Court of Appeal ruled that the appeal would not generally have suspensive effect but agreed to suspend enforcement against Belkin's managing directors. It found a manifest legal error in the Court of First Instance's treatment of the directors as intermediaries under Article 63 UPCA. Additionally, the Court of Appeal overturned the requirement for the managing directors to bear legal expenses and the costs associated with publicising the judgment, deeming these aspects of the ruling legally flawed. The Court of Appeal upheld other parts of the decision, emphasising the importance of balancing the interests of both parties. This case highlights the Unified Patent Court's commitment to ensuring precise legal interpretation while balancing the interests of all parties in complex cross-border patent disputes.

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