What’s on at the smaller local divisions

Ljubljana is the exception and Copenhagen a mystery. While the local division in the Slovenian capital is the only one of the UPC divisions to not yet see a case, the local division in the Danish capital has had one infringment case since February 2024. This is shown in the UPC’s monthly caseload statistics. But for over six months, no further details about the Copenhagen case have been released. The court has repeatedly stated that it has no comment as the lawsuit is still being served.

JUVE Patent at least managed to find out that the lawsuit is being served in Serbia. From whom and to whom, however, remains unknown. Copenhagen and Ljubljana are among the smaller UPC divisions. Other divisions such as Vienna have a similar caseload. The local division Vienna has currently one infringement and one PI case, and the local division in Brussels has two infringement cases and one application for preserving evidence. Meanwhile, the local division in Helsinki has one infringment case and Lisbon has one PI case.

The central division in Milan also has one revocation and one PI case. The youngest of all UPC venues only took up its duties on 1 July and received two cases in its first month. Some local divisions had to wait much longer. However, details of the cases are not yet known.

Under the radar

All other UPC venues have significantly more cases. Munich is in the lead with 67 infringement and 14 PI cases, plus one application for preserving evidence. Düsseldorf follows with 44 in total and then Mannheim with 24 cases.

The larger divisions are involved in major proceedings that attract a great deal of attention due to their economic importance. Examples include Panasonic vs Xiaomi and Oppo over mobile phone standards, Dexcom vs Abbott over glucose-monitoring devices, and Edwards Lifescience vs Meril Life Sciences over heart valves. Meanwhile, cases at the smaller divisions usually fly under the radar of UPC users.

One such case was that of Cretes. In May 2024, Cretes and the Belgian law firm Eubelius filed a lawsuit against Hyler at the Brussels local division over hemp-harvesting machines. The Belgian company specialises in the engineering and manufacturing of processing equipment in the biofibre segment and sued its competitor for infringing two patents (case ID: ACT_25743/2024). Hyler, also from Belgium, specialises in harvesting machines for flax and hemp and retained Brussels partner Kristof Roox of the US law firm Crowell.

Special technologies in Brussels

The Brussels local division, headed by presiding judge Samuel Granata, is dealing with another dispute involving a special technology. In autumn, Jef Nelissen sued the Spanish medical device manufacturer OrthoApnea and its distribution partner Vivisol in Brussels for infringing a European patent (case ID: ACT_581538/2023). He also filed an application to preserve evidence (case ID: ACT_574133/2023).

Jef Nelissen is a Belgian inventor. Christophe Ronse from the Belgian law firm Altius represents him at the UPC. Arnold & Siedsma, which filed the patent application for the inventor, provides support. The dispute concerns a device for treating breathing problems during sleep. Nelissen claimed that OrthoApnea’s product NOA infringes his patent. NOA is a dental splint designed to ensure restful sleep. Marleen van den Horst from the Dutch law firm La Gro and patent attorneys from EP&C represent OrthoApnea and Vivisol in the infringement case.

Vienna attracts SMEs

The cases at the local division Vienna show that the UPC attracted medium-sized companies in its first year. In September 2023, the division’s first hearing revolved around a patent protecting a technology for milk frothers. CUP&CINO had asked the court under presiding judge Walter Schober to grant a PI against competitor Alpina but failed in the first instance when the judges found that Alpina did not infringe CUP&CINO’s patent EP 3 398 487. The patent owner instructed Taylor Wessing lawyer Thomas Adocker, as well as patent attorney Andreas Gehring from Puchberger & Partner. Defendant Alpina relied on its long-standing patent attorney firm Torggler & Hofmann, without involving litigators.

A second case in Vienna concerns a transportation technology that can also be used in advertising and optics. In January 2024, Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme filed a lawsuit with the local divison accusing Strabag of infringing a patent that protects a colour-mixing collection optic (case ID: ACT_4261/2024). Strabag retained Rainer Beetz, patent attorney of the well-known Austrian law firm Sonn & Partner. Alexander Koller from the Viennese law firm Nomos filed the action on behalf of Swarco Futurit. The local division has not yet scheduled an oral hearing.

Helsinki waits for more

The local division Helsinki under presiding judge Petri Rinkinen, on the other hand, saw its first cases in summer 2023. In June that year, AIM Sport filed an infringement and PI case against Supponor regarding advertising technology in sports stadiums. Initially AIM Sport had opted the patent-in-dispute out of the UPC but subsequently decided to withdraw the opt-out and file suits in Helsinki. In PI proceedings in September 2023, the Helsinki local division rejected both claims by AIM Sport. An appeal is pending (case ID: APL_596892/2023).

Roschier and Powell Gilbert represent AIM Sport, with two German law firms also involved. Finnish law firm Hannes Snellman represents Supponor, with support from Hogan Lovells and Gleiss Lutz. The dispute is now playing out at national patent courts in the UK and Germany.

Helsinki was one of the first local divisions to deliver a judgment and it has been waiting for new cases ever since. The Nordic-Baltic regional division in Stockholm is currently attracting more cases, with six infringment proceedings at present.

Relief in Lisbon

Presiding judge Rute Lopes in Lisbon probably sighed with relief when the division finally received its first case in June 2024. Ericsson filed a PI against AsusTek with the help of Dutch lawyer Wim Maas from Taylor Wessing. AsusTek defends itself with the help of two London Powell Gilbert partners Alex Wilson and Peter Demerell.

Typically for Ericsson, the case concerns a mobile communication patent (case ID: ACT_35572/2024). But EP 2819131 is an SEP rather than an implementation patent. Ericsson tried to enforce it against Apple two years ago by means of a PI application in The Hague. Now, somewhat surprisingly, the choice fell on Lisbon.

JUVE Patent currently has no information on the reasons for this. Perhaps the Finnish company is hoping for a quick decision from a court with a low caseload. After all, the local divisions in Munich and Düsseldorf now have quite full calendars. But perhaps it is also the hope that three judges who do not come from Germany or hear SEP cases very often will take a fresh look at the case. Judges Petri Rinkinen and Samuel Granata will join Rute Lopes on the panel.

Both Taylor Wessing and Powell Gilbert are also active for their clients in Milan. Ericsson filed two parallel infringement actions against AsusTek and its subsidiaries at the Milan local division (case IDs: ACT_35575/2024 and ACT_35574/2024). Rute Lopez is also involved in these cases as a third judge.

Even though the presiding judges of the smaller local divisions only have one or two active cases so far, Rute Lopes in Lisbon, Petri Rinkinen in Helsinki, Walter Schober in Vienna, Samuel Granata in Brussels and Mojca Mlakar in Ljubljana are by no means underemployed. They are working on many cases at other venues, not least the busy German local divisions.