Dear Reader,
The UPC continues to prove its versatility and this week's cases span a colourful range of industries - often dovetailing with national courts. At Munich Regional Court, for example, Brazilian manufacturer Silimed has secured a preliminary injunction against its German rival Polytech over breast implant technology, capping off a years-long entitlement battle. What makes this case particularly noteworthy is the interplay between national and UPC proceedings: having wrested ownership of the patent through the German courts, Silimed promptly withdrew Polytech's UPC opt-out and launched actions on both fronts simultaneously.
Meanwhile, Dyson has notched up yet another PI victory against Chinese competitor Dreame at the Hamburg local division, this time targeting the Dazzle hair styler. The ruling offers a refinement of the court's approach to long-arm jurisdiction, with the judges explicitly implementing the Court of Appeal's recent guidance – and in part correcting their own earlier stance. Notably, however, the PI stops at the English Channel: the connection to UK-based defendants was deemed too tenuous.
In the SEP arena, Nokia's decision to withdraw all actions against Warner Bros. and Paramount in Germany and at the UPC marks a significant concession to the UK High Court's authority in setting global FRAND rates. Nokia thus follows the example of Huawei, which was the first SEP holder to agree to an interim licence set by the UK High Court.
Finally, the Suinno vs Microsoft saga offers perhaps a cautionary tale for under-resourced patent holders. After its representative was found to lack independence, its infringement claim dismissed for failure to post security, and its patent revoked, the Finnish company now faces a €600,000 security demand on appeal – with the clock ticking. The Court of Appeal's clarification on who may request security for costs in counterclaim scenarios is worth noting for any practitioner navigating UPC procedures.
Enjoy this week's read,
|
