Germany: Patent

Legal interest in revocation proceedings must be examined by the Court of its own motion, even where the defendant does not challenge admissibility (headnote 1; para. 11)

A landmark ruling from the Düsseldorf Local Division demonstrates the Unified Patent Court's willingness to compel defendants to publicly correct misleading statements about patent disputes on their own platforms.

The Düsseldorf local division of the Unified Patent Court has ruled on a defendant's request for a supplementary expert opinion following an ex-parte inspection order.

The Court acknowledges the confidential nature of specific information after the claimant did not object to the defendant’s corresponding assertion.

The court assesses whether an action is devoid of purpose based on the claimant’s legitimate legal interest (R. 360 RoP). The defendant’s interest is not autonomously considered in this assessment.

Dyson Technology Limited has filed an application for provisional measures at the UPC Hamburg against multiple Dreame entities and distributors, involving European Patent 3,119,235. The case raises questions about jurisdiction under the Brussels I recast regulation and the interplay between UPC procedural rules and EU regulations in cross-border patent disputes.

The Court of Appeal confirms that a request under R. 262.2 RoP does not in itself prevent the other party from using or disclosing information already communicated...

The UPC Munich Local Division (the LD Munich) has dismissed an infringement action relating to a medical device. It confirmed that a device can still infringe a patent, even if it is normally operated in a non-infringing way, as long as the patent-infringing use remains possible.

In ex parte inspection proceedings, the applicant must disclose all material facts relevant to the request, including those that may weigh against it...