UPC Declines to Grant Provisional Injunction

Darren Smyth
January 8, 2024
#
UPC
#
Recent cases
#
Infringement
#
Provisional injunction

SES-imagotag SA v Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd. and others UPC_CFI_292/2023

Order of 20 December 2023 (ORD_596193/2023)[1]

SES-imagotag is the proprietor of EP 3883277, which had been opted out of the jurisdiction of the UPC, then this opt out was withdrawn and unitary effect requested. The patent relates to electronic labels, and the patentee alleged infringement by Hanshow Technology and distribution companies based in France, Germany and the Netherlands, in particular by electronic labels of the "Nebular" and "Stellar" series, and sought a provisional injunction to restrain infringement by these labels.

The Munich local division rejected a challenge to its competence by the defendants, pointing out that one of the alleged acts of infringement was a use in a Munich supermarket. It was not relevant to the question of jurisdiction whether that act was finally adjudged to be an infringement. The court also decided that all the alleged infringing acts in Europe were attributable to all the defendants, so that jurisdiction could be exercised over all of them.

However, the court was not convinced with sufficient certainty that the patent was infringed. In particular, it considered that the location of the antenna on the alleged infringing products was not in accordance with the claim definition. Interestingly, the court looked at both the granted claim wording, but also the original claim wording which was amended during prosecution, in arriving at its claim construction.

Accordingly, the court declined to grant a provisional injunction and ordered the patentee to pay the defendant's costs of the action, capped at €200,000 based on setting the value of the case at €2,000,000. The recoverable costs were ordered to include the costs associated with the preparation of a protective letter (Rule 207 RoP), which had been filed a few days before the provisional injunction application.

In view of its findings on infringement, the court declined to consider the validity of the asserted patent.


[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/522

Recent Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.