i-mop v ARCORA (UPC_CFI_193/2024)
Decision date:
11 October 2024
Osborne Clarke summary
- The Munich LD handed down a default decision against Arcora, which was found to have infringed i-mop's combined mopping and vacuuming cleaning device.
- The court has the discretion to grant a default judgment under Article 37(1) UPCA and Rule 355.1 RoP, provided that four conditions are met. Firstly, the claimant has requested the default judgment. Secondly, the defendant has failed to perform an action required of them within the specified period and the RoP provide for the issuance of a default judgment if the deadline is missed. Thirdly, the period for responding to the claim or counterclaim has expired and the claim or counterclaim was served in a way that allowed the defendant sufficient time to defend itself. Fourthly, there must be a substantive justification: that is, the facts presented by the claimant and the procedural behaviour of the defendant do not mitigate against issuing the default judgment.
- In this case, all four conditions were met. This case underscores the need for the claimant to put forth a substantive justification for the default judgment. Here, after a substantive review of the merits of i-mop's case, the Munich LD found that i-mop had demonstrated that Arcora's embodiment made direct use of the technical teaching of its patent without i-mop's consent. Furthermore, no procedural behaviour of Arcora pointed against issuing the default judgment.
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.