14 July 2025
Central Division Munich, Bausmann v Raimund Beck
Interim Conference
Background
Bausmann filed revocation proceedings against Raimond Beck.
The interim conference took place online on 11 July 2025.
The Judge-Rapporteur (JR)
- The value of the litigation was said to be €500,000. The JR noted that this is effectively too low, but as it is to establish the ceiling for recoverable costs, he does not see a problem.
- The decision whether a late-filed document can be accepted, will be made during the oral hearing. The claimant can discuss the document during the oral hearing.
- The parties were told that the ceiling for costs is €56,000 and that the Court, in general, will accept an agreement on costs.
- Oral argument is scheduled for 16 October 2025 at 9:30AM.
Comment
- The Technically Qualified Judge (TQJ) was also present during the interim conference, which is certainly useful when technical issues are discussed.
- Apparently, both parties agree that costs should be kept low (or at least the risk with respect to costs if one loses should be limited). This is accommodated by the JR, who accepted a low value for the litigation. This does not make a difference for the UPC as the court fee for revocation proceedings is a flat fee of €20,000. Therefore, the value of the dispute only determines the ceiling of recoverable costs, which in this case, both parties want to be low.
- The JR (who was a practicing attorney and patent attorney before becoming a judge) again tried to convince the parties to agree on costs. From day one, he has always tried to convince parties to agree on costs, but unfortunately without much success. It would be beneficial for clients and the Court not to waste time on costs (and separate cost proceedings). Let us hope that representatives start to see the light!
14 July 2025
Local Division Milan, Pirelli v Sichuan
Reinstatement of case
Background
On 31 October 2024, Pirelli requested an ex parte order for an evidentiary seizure of all tyres of the type HA-51R and HA-51F and promotional materials shown during an exhibition in Milan. The measures were carried out on 6 November 2024. Pirelli started proceedings on the merits on 5 December 2024.
On 3 June 2025 (almost 8 months later!), Sichuan filed a request for an extension of time for filing a request for review of the seizure order (my note: which, according to R. 197.3 RoP has to be filed within one month after the execution of the seizure). Sichuan argued that it had never received a copy of the request for seizure, the attachments, and the order as ordered by the judge who granted the request.
The Court
- The Court stated that Sichuan’s request must be seen as a request for a reinstatement of the time limits pursuant to R. 320 RoP. The Court referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal of 6 June 2025 in Hanshow v Vusion (UPC_CoA_618/2024).
- The Court rejected the request, referring to the fact that Pirelli had (in view of the extreme urgency) asked for an alternative method of service of the order (by a judicial officer at the venue of the exhibition).
- The Court held that the execution of the order was properly carried out according to Italian law (R. 354.1 RoP).
Comment
- If, as in the case of Sichuan here, a party refers to the wrong Rules but the facts qualify for the application of other Rules, the Court will apply such Rules.
Note that R. 320 RoP (re-establishment of rights) requires that a time limit can only be restored if “all due care” has been taken by the party requesting reinstatement and the cause of non-observance of the time limit was outside its control. Given that Sichuan refused the notification at the exhibition, it is already clear that this action by Sichuan could never have succeeded.
15 July 2025
Local Division Milan, Pirelli v Kingtyre
Settlement
Background
Pirelli sued Kingtyre Germany and Kingtyre China for infringement on 5 December 2024.
On 25 February 2025, Pirelli and Kingtyre Germany settled.
Pirelli requested:
- confirmation of the agreement (R. 365 RoP);
- to maintain confidentiality with respect to the amount of damages and legal fees paid by Kingtyre Germany;
- to grant all claims against Kingtyre China;
- to order reimbursement of court fees.
The Court
- confirms the Agreement, referring to R. 365 RoP and R.11.2 RoP;
- orders confidentiality;
- stays the case against the Chinese defendant;
- orders the reimbursement of 30% of the court fees.
The Court states that there are two defendants, and the case against one defendant was settled before the end of the written proceedings. Therefore, it awards half of the 60% that is awarded if the whole case is withdrawn before the end of the written proceedings.
Comment
- The reference to R.11.2 RoP is, in my view, not necessary and also not correct. R. 11 RoP concerns a settlement reached with the initiative or help of the Court or the JR. The Court is right that despite R. 365.4 RoP, it does not have to decide about costs if the parties have also agreed on costs.
- The Court is wrong in reimbursing 30% of the court fees. Court fees are due regardless of the number of defendants, and they should only be reimbursed if the action is withdrawn. Here, the action is not withdrawn but continues against the Chinese defendant.
- I assume (though this is not very clear in the decision) that the case against the Chinese defendant is “stayed” (the Milan Court states that it “ferma” the proceedings against the Chinese defendant; “ferma” means “halted” in Italian), perhaps because the Chinese defendant has not yet been served with the Statement of Claim (?).
15 July 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, Qiagen v bioMérieux
Confidential Information
Facts
BioMérieux asked for protection of confidential information.
Decision of the JR
- Prior art is not confidential information, and the JR does not accept the argument that knowledge of the prior art would indirectly disclose the exact lengths of the peptides used by the defendant, as this is too unspecific.
- A party is free to engage the attorneys it wishes to engage. The representatives are free to choose their team members, for whom they are responsible.
- A requirement that persons from the claimant who get access to the confidential information should not have been involved in the prosecution of the claimant’s patents is not acceptable.
- External experts who get access to the confidential information should be mentioned by name.
Comment
- In this case, the defendant even wanted the claimant’s representatives to name two assistants who would get access and invented “procedural conditions”. That procedural condition, in fact, could have been read as the defendant implicitly threatening to remove all confidential information from the Statement of Defence if the JR did not grant an order precisely as the defendant indicated. Luckily for the defendant, the JR pretended not to understand that “procedural condition,” as I assume a defence without the confidential information would probably have been disadvantageous for the defendant.
- I think the JR got everything right:
- Prior art (which is by its nature public) is not confidential information.
- Representatives choose their own teams, for which they are responsible.
- Persons from the claimant who get access do not have to be employees but must be named.
15 July 2025
Court of Appeal, Valinea v Tiru
Evidentiary seizure
Facts
- On 23 December 2024, the Paris Local Division issued two ex parte orders allowing patentee Tiru to carry out an evidentiary seizure and an inspection against Valinea and Maquin.
- Valinea asked for a review of the orders (R. 197.3 RoP and R. 197.4 RoP), arguing:
-
-
-
-
-
-
- no urgency
- no risk of destruction or disappearance of the evidence;
- Tiru had omitted relevant information in their request.
-
-
-
-
-
-