Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile (UPC_CFI_241/2023)

• Oerlikon owns the patent at issue relating to a false twist texturing machine and alleged that Bhagat had infringed it by the promotion and public offering of its texturing machine that was exhibited at a trade fair.
• Bhagat did not contest the validity of the patent or the alleged infringement of the patent by its machine exhibited at the trade fair. Accordingly, as a result of Rule 171.2 RoP, the infringement had to be held to be proved.
• The Milan LD granted a permanent injunction against Bhagat because the risk of repetition of the promotion and advertising of its infringing machine was "persistent" and the threat of sale was also imminent. The court was persuaded to grant the order on the basis that the evidence would no longer be available following the end of the trade fair.
• Instead of denying infringement or challenging the validity of the patent, Bhagat requested that the court stay the proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP (discretion to stay proceedings where proper justice requires it) pending the outcome of ongoing parallel proceedings involving Oerlikon and a separate defendant, Himson Engineering, who had challenged the patent's validity. The Milan LD declined to stay the proceedings as Bhagat had conceded validity of the patent and had not supported the revocation counterclaim in the other action.
• Bhagat denied causing any damage to Oerlikon and requested costs – typically paid by the unsuccessful party under Article 69 UPCA – be reduced, emphasising its pre-trial cooperation and settlement efforts. As a result of these equitable reasons, the court decided that the costs should split 20% to be paid by Oerlikon and 80% to be paid by Bhagat.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.