In a recent dispute at the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_628/2024, UPC_CFI_125/2025), Emboline Inc. initiated infringement proceedings against AorticLab srl based on their European patent to an embolic protection device. The defendant in turn disputed the validity of the patent and filed a counterclaim for revocation.
During the oral hearing, the defendant declared that their counterclaim would be made dependent on the intra-procedural condition that patent infringement was found. The Court ruled that the UPCA and Rules of Procedure of the UPC did not prevent the admissibility of such a condition, and that the claimant would not be disadvantaged by the condition. The counterclaim was hence deemed to be limited in accordance with Rule 263.3 RoP.
Ultimately, the Court concluded the action by finding the patent to be non-infringed such that no decision regarding the counterclaim was required. The costs incurred in this regard were deemed to be unnecessary, and the defendant was therefore ordered to bear the costs for the counterclaim.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
