Decision keyword:
Ortovox Sportartikel/Mammut Sports (avalanche transceiver II)
Law applied:
UPCA Art. 24 para. 1 lit. c, Art. 25 lit. a, Art. 26 para. 1, Art. 47 para. 1, Art. 62 para. 2, para. 3
UPC Implementing Regulations Preamble point 7 p. 3, R.118.5, R.171.2, R.197.3, R.197.4, R.206.2 lit. c, R.209.2 lit. b, R.211.1, R.211.2, R.211.4, R.212.3, R.213.2, R.354.3, R.354.4
EPC Art. 54, Art. 69
Summary: (Machine Translation)
- Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA in conjunction with Art. 69 EPC. Art. 69 EPC conclusively determine which documents are to be used for the interpretation of the patent claims determining the scope of protection, namely the patent description and the patent drawings. Since the grant file is not mentioned in Art. 69 EPC, it does not in principle constitute admissible material for interpretation. If the applicant has commented on the meaning of a feature or term during the examination procedure, this may at most have indicative significance as to how the skilled person understands the feature in question.
- In principle, a claimant does not have to take any risks when pursuing a claim in proceedings for interim measures. He only needs to apply to the court if he has reliable knowledge of all the facts that make legal action in proceedings for interim measures promising and if he can credibly demonstrate these facts.
- Pursuant to item 7, sentence 3 of the preamble to the Rules of Procedure, the parties must cooperate with the court and present their arguments as early as possible. Submissions that are only submitted to the file after the conclusion of the oral proceedings do not meet these requirements from the outset and must therefore generally be rejected as late. This applies in any case if the party concerned was not exceptionally granted the right to make additional submissions within a time limit set by the court in response to a request for reasons during the oral hearing.
- There is no reason for a basic decision on costs in proceedings for interim measures if the summary proceedings are followed by proceedings on the merits. In this case, the Rules of Procedure provide for a provisional reimbursement of costs (R. 211.1 (d) RoP), with which the successful party can claim its costs of the summary proceedings and have them titled directly. For an analogous application of.
- 5 R. 118.5 RoP therefore already lacks a regulatory gap that is contrary to plan.
- The court may demand the provision of appropriate security in favor of the respondent in the event that the order for interim measures is revoked. Unless the specific case exceptionally requires otherwise, this option should generally be used.
Unified Patent Court (UPC), Düsseldorf Local Division, Order issued on 09.04.2023 – UPC_CFI_452/2023 –
Header: Anze_AdobeStock.com