Case Law
Rule 221: Application for leave to appeal against cost decisions

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 21/05/2024, SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited / Dyson Technology Limited (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CFI_443/2023, ORD_598328/2023)
Example of decision on the validity of an opt-out: “The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection of a European patent under Art 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art 69 EPC. The interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely on its exact wording in the linguistic sense. Rather, the description and the drawings must always be consulted as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim and not only for the elimination of any ambiguities in the patent claim. However, this does not mean that the patent claim merely serves as a guideline and that its subject matter also extends to that which, after examination of the description and the drawings, appears to be the patent proprietor’s request for protection. The patent claim must be interpreted from the perspective of a person skilled in the art. When applying these principles, appropriate protection for the patent proprietor should be combined with sufficient legal certainty for third parties. These principles for the interpretation of a patent claim apply equally to the assessment of infringement and the legal validity of a European patent (UPC_CoA_335/2023 and CoA 8/2024).
Pursuant to Art 62 para 2 UPCA (R 211.3 RP), the court must exercise its discretion in weighing the interests of the parties with regard to the issuance of the order or the rejection of the application; in doing so, all relevant circumstances must be taken into account, in particular the possible damage that the parties may suffer as a result of the issuance of the order or the rejection of the application for an order. The degree of probability to which the court is convinced of the existence of the individual circumstances to be weighed up is also decisive for the exercise of discretion. The more certain the court is that the right holder is asserting the infringement of a valid patent, that there is a need to issue an injunction due to factual and temporal circumstances and that this is not precluded by possible damages suffered by the opponent or other justified objections, the more likely it is that the issuance of an injunction is justified. On the other hand, the sooner there are relevant uncertainties with regard to individual circumstances relevant to the balancing of interests that are detrimental to the court’s conviction, the court will have to consider as a milder measure the authorisation of the continuation of the alleged infringement subject to the provision of security or even the dismissal of the application (UPC_CFI_2/2023 (LK München).”