Progress Machinen & Automation v AWM & Schnell (UPC_CFI_286/2023)
Decision date:
25 September 2023
Osborne Clarke summary
- PMA filed two application for preserving evidence and for inspection against AWM and Schnell, requesting an ex parte order. The applications were identical and therefore were joined and ruled on together.
- PMA is the proprietor of an EP protecting a method and an apparatus of continuously producing a lattice girder. PMA gathered information about the ongoing production, promotion and commercial offer of apparatus by AWM and a group member Schnell since 2022. PMA alleged infringement.
- PMA explained that it intended to issue infringement proceedings, relying on the evidence that was the subject of the application. Upon consideration, the court decided that the conditions set out in Rule 192.2 RoP for applications for preserving evidence were met.
- PMA had implied that, as a result of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, the opposition proceedings were rejected, and therefore the validity of the patent at this early stage was proved.
- With regard to infringement, PMA provided a picture from the website and a YouTube screenshot to show the height adjustment of the device. The court accepted this as sufficiently providing reasonable evidence.
- The court granted the order to inspect the premises and gather evidence.
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.