Imbox v Brunngard & Footbridge (UPC_CFI_527/2024)
Decision date:
17 February 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- Imbox made an application to preserve evidence (saisie) and to inspect the defendants' premises, and requested that this order be granted without notifying the defendants. Instead, the court used its discretion under Rule 194.1 RoP and informed the defendants and invited them to make an objection to the application. The defendants objected to the application, requesting it be dismissed.
- Later, Imbox withdrew its application based on the defendants' statement on the functionality of the attacked embodiment. The defendants did not object to the withdrawal but maintained their requests for confidentiality and compensation for legal costs and other expenses.
- Imbox agreed not to share the confidential information that arose from these proceedings with any third parties. Since Imbox withdrew its application after being convinced that the defendants did not infringe its patent, it was the unsuccessful party and therefore had to pay the defendants' reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses up to the ceiling set by the Administrative Committee (Article 69 UPCA and Rule 152.2 RoP).
- The Nordic-Baltic RD found that the ceiling on costs serves as a joint ceiling for all defendants' representation costs and awarded an amount that reflected that the proceedings were not overly complex and that the application was withdrawn at an early stage. Nonetheless, it held that the defendants had had a need to defend themselves in these proceedings because it could have resulted in an order forcing them to provide a competitor with confidential information.
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.