Interested in more of this? Stay tuned and subscribe here for weekly updates.
On the go, multi-tasking or just prefer to listen? “Willem Hoyng’s UPC Unfiltered AI Podcast” – your weekly, AI-generated podcast discussing Willem Hoyng’s commentary on UPC case law of last week, offers a convenient alternative. Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.
14 April 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, Ona v Google
Bifurcation
Order by the Court
Already before the end of the written proceedings, the Court orders that it will not bifurcate.
Comment
I have already said before that I think that such an early decision as soon as a counterclaim for revocation is filed is desirable. It involves the Technically Qualified Judge from the start of the proceedings and can only make proceedings more efficient.
14 April 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, Ona v Apple
Same decision as Ona v Google above.
14 April 2025
Local Division Munich, Shanghai v Longi
Service
Facts
Defendants 1, 5, 6 were served.
Defendant 4 was informed by the German Post Office (after they were sent a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt which they did not accept) that they could pick up the documents for a period of two weeks but failed to do so.
For Defendants 2, 3 and 5 service is still outstanding.
Request
The claimant requested the Court to order that Defendant 4 (a German company) would be deemed validly served.
The Judge Rapporteur (JR)
Referring to R. 271.6.b RoP, the JR rules that Defendant 4 is validly served.
Comment
The German Patent Office stated that “the recipient has been notified”. What does that mean? I suspect that that is a simple card in the letterbox stating that the documents can be collected for a period of the upcoming 14 days. There is no guarantee that defendant 4 was actually aware or could have known (for instance because they refused receipt) that they have been sued. I have serious doubts whether that should be deemed a valid service.
14 April 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko
Security of legal costs