European Union Unified Patent Court (UPC) The Helsinki District Court rejected the ruling by an American companyAIM SportRequests made to Finnish companiesSupponorA request for an injunction. merely, The process behind the ruling has raised concerns, Because the court withdrew the opt-out option for the applicant (opt-out) The problems have been comprehensively sorted out. This could affect thousands of patents that have opted out, And hinder the development process of supranational courts.

As mentioned above, UPCThe local branch in HelsinkiAIM SportandSupponorIn a case involving targeted advertising technology at sports venues. however, The judge dismissed the caseAIM Sportraised, Based on having previously opt-outUPCThe patent in question (Number asEP3295663) A request for a preliminary injunction against its competitor.

Although the patent owner withdrew the opt-out after the defendant's lawyers presented relevant arguments, But the judge still found it a violation "Agreement on the Unified Patent Court" (UPCA) The first83article3The provisions of paragraph. The clause clearly states, As long as the applicant has not yet opted out of the application, Patent or supplementary protection certificates are filed in national courts, Then the applicant may withdraw the opt-out at any time.

AIM SportDefense of the timeline issue

According to the German court in2022First instance judgment on infringement and invalidity claims of parties (The case is still pending) , The judge of the Helsinki District Court ruled against No83article3The following explanation is given, namelyAIM SportThere's no withdrawing the opt-out in this case. therefore, The court rejected the plaintiff's claim on the merits.

During the proceedings, AIM Sportargue, The above paragraph is only applicable to those inUPCA lawsuit filed after it takes effect. Since the German lawsuit is in2023years6month1dayUPCBefore it was up and running, Therefore, the company believes that this provision does not apply to the patents in this case. however, The judge disagreed.

According to the explanation given by the judge, If the parties areUPCA lawsuit was filed in its member states before it was launched, Then their actions to withdraw the opt-out should be ineffective. therewith, Some observers think this could undermine confidence in the new court, Especially those patent owners who have opted out.

Sophisticated technology

At the very beginning of the proceedings, AIM SportassertSupponorviolatedEP3295663European patent No, The patent relates to "Superimpose an image digit onto another image" . This technology can be used inLEDDisplay board to place ads in specific areas. Such as, When a football match is being broadcast live around the world, Broadcasters can adjust virtual peripheral advertising, To accommodate target groups in different regions. Using digital superposition technology in broadcast signal, Individual modifications can be made to the images on the stadium billboards.

The U. S. -based company filed its case against the defendants in the Helsinki District CourtSupponorA request for a preliminary injunction. There is a lot at stake. It is estimated that, The football advertising market alone is worth nearly as much1Billions of euros.

therefore, AIM SportIs trying to preserve its reputation in countries including Germany and FranceUPCIntellectual property in member States. In addition, The patent owner has also filed a lawsuit in Spain, But the country is notUPCAOf the signatory States. Other types of sports, though, could use the companies' technology, But both sides are more focused on the lucrative business of broadcasting football.

AIM SportFailed to win consecutive court victories

2022spring, In a lawsuit brought by Germany, The Munich District Court ruledSupponorviolatedEP3295663Patent No. therefore, Judge's orderSupponorStop sales immediately, Compensate for loss, Provide relevant information and destroy the product. therewith, The defendants appealed against the verdict. 2022years8month, The German Federal Patent Court ruled that the patent was valid in Germany, whileSupponorThe company has also appealed against the ruling.

In parallel proceedings in England, The British High Court also ruledEP3295663Patent No. 1 is valid, andSupponorIt does violate the patent. merely, Judging from the current situation, Patent owners' winning streak has been interrupted, whileUPCThe development process seems to have been affected.

The impact on the whole system

The Helsinki District Court's ruling could affect thousands of patents. Although those patents initially opted out of the system, But with the parties withdrawing their opt-out, They're back inUPCJurisdiction of.

evident, The parties in this case are likely to continue to appeal. The verdict may be rightUPCCase law has had a significant impact. merely, This information is not yet available. (Be compiled fromwww. juve-patent. com)

TRANSLATORS: Liu Peng　proofread: Wang Dan



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.