Aylo v DISH (UPC_CoA_188/2024)
Decision date:
03 September 2024
Osborne Clarke summary
- Aylo's preliminary objection that the infringement action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of the Mannheim LD was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
- The action related to a streaming service. It was found by the Court of Appeal that Article 7(2) in conjunction with Article 71b(1) of the recast Brussels Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the UPC has international jurisdiction in respect of an infringement action where the European Patent relied on by the claimant has effect in at least one UPC contracting member state and the alleged damage may occur in that particular state. Where damage is allegedly caused via the internet, the likelihood of damage may arise from the possibility of acquiring products and/or using services from the website that is accessible in the UPC contracting member state where the European Patent has effect.
- The harmful event put forward by DISH and Sling in their statement of claim was that, through its websites, Aylo offers and supplies video files and media players to end-users in, inter alia, Germany, which, when operating on the end-user stations, perform the method claimed in the patent in suit.
- This was sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the UPC pursuant to Article 7(2) in conjunction with Article 71b(1) of the recast Brussels Regulation, since (as was not disputed) the patent at issue has effect in, inter alia, Germany, and Aylo's websites are accessible in, inter alia, Germany.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.