Sioen v Texport (UPC_CFI_9/2024)
Decision date:
29 October 2024
Osborne Clarke summary
- This decision concerned a preliminary objection in which the Nordic-Baltic RD assessed the interaction between the UPC and the Belgian court in a case concerning alleged infringement of a European Patent relating to clothing construction.
- Sioen made a preliminary objection concerning the UPC's jurisdiction because of ongoing proceedings relating to a request for a declaration of non-infringement in Belgium. Texport later initiated infringement proceedings in the Nordic-Baltic RD. Subsequently, Sieon also started a revocation action in the Belgian courts. The Belgian court has declared, in a non-final decision, that it has jurisdiction with respect to the Belgian part of the patent but not with respect to other states where the patent is in force.
- The Nordic-Baltic RD held that according to Article 71c(2) of the recast Brussels Regulation, Articles 29 to 32 (the lis pendens rules) apply during the UPC transitional period. However, Articles 29 and 31 are only applicable if the two proceedings involve the same parties or their interests are so closely related that a judgment delivered against one of them would have the force of res judicata as against the other. In this case, the parties were not the same and nor were their interests indissociable. The court also considered Article 30 (concerning the discretion of courts other than that first seised to stay proceedings in related actions).
- The UPC opted not to stay its proceedings pending resolution of the national proceedings in Belgium as: (i) the subject-matter of the UPC proceedings differed in encompassing infringing acts in Latvia and in Portugal; and (ii) the oral hearing at the UPC was scheduled for February 2025, which was earlier than the oral hearing at the Belgian court scheduled for June 2025. The fact that Sioen initiated revocation proceedings in Belgium after Texport started infringement proceedings in the UPC was not in itself a reason to the stay the proceedings. In addition, the UPC had no information on the alleged grounds for revocation so could not assess the likelihood of success.
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.