2025-03-18 - LD Munich - Sun Patent Trust v. Roku - UPC_CFI_254/2024

1. The alleged incompatibility of the legal bases of the UPC, in particular the provisions of the UPCA, with the requirements of European primary law in the form of the TEU and the TFEU, and the allegedly resulting invalidity of the UPCA, is not a ground for preliminary objection within the meaning of Rule 19 (1) RoP. 2. A preliminary objection under Rule 19(1) RoP cannot be successfully based on an alleged violation of Article 47(2) EU CFR or Article 6(1) sentence 1 ECHR. 3. If a representative of the Claimant has declared a withdrawal from the ‘opt-out’ concerning the patent at issue, it is not necessary for the Claimant to prove – on his own initiative – the representative's authorisation regarding the declared withdrawal in or with the Statement of claim. Proof must only be submitted in the event that the authorisation is contested. 4. For the assumption of jurisdiction, it is not necessary that an infringement has actually occurred or is imminent. Rather, within the scope of the examination of jurisdiction, it is sufficient if the Claimant conclusively asserts that an infringing act establishing the jurisdiction has occurred and that it cannot be ruled out from the outset.

The Munich Local Division dismissed a preliminary objection which was based on the alleged incompatibility of the UPCA and the TEU and TFEU, a lack of jurisdiction and an allegedly invalid withdrawal of opt-out. The Court clarified that not all these were admissible grounds for the preliminary opposition and went into more detail regarding the requirements regarding the authorization for the opt-in.