2025-03-21 - LD Brussels - Barco v. Yealink Network Technology - UPC_CFI_582/2024

1. R. 19(1) RoP, and its mentioned time-limit, is not applicable to objections to applications for provisional measures. 2. The amendments made to the Brussels I Regulation were intended solely to establish the (international) jurisdiction of the UPC and did not affect the regime set out in the UPCA regarding its internal (territorial) competence (Art. 33 UPCA). (Territorial) competence of a division of the UPC is a matter of the internal organisation of the UPC. 3. Art. 33(1) UPCA does not follow the same structure (or “purpose and scheme”) as to be found in the Brussels I Recast Regulation in the sense of a general rule and an exception to that rule. Art. 33(1) UPCA refers to alternative competences under (a) and (b) without stating one of them as a general rule (or principle) and the other as a special rule (or exception). The case law of the CJEU regarding the (international) jurisdiction of a court of a EU Member State, and in particular its interpretation of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (as a derogation (or exception) to the general rule (stated in Art. 4 (1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation) and therefore to be interpreted restrictively, is not one-to-one applicable with regard to the (territorial) competence of a division of the UPC in application of Art. 33(1) UPCA. 4. Since the UPC has substantive jurisdiction to hear infringement actions or provisional measures for European patents (Art. 3(c) UPCA in conjunction with Art. 32(1)(a) or (c) UPCA), the date of grant of the European Patent should be considered as the objective earliest date to file an action with the UPC (either an action for infringement (Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA) or an action for provisional measures (Art. 32(1)(c) UPCA), and not the date of registration of the unitary effect of this European patent. 5. The conditions to be met to grant preliminary measures are of a cumulative nature in the sense that not meeting one of these conditions implies the claims for provisional measures to be held unfounded without the necessity or obligation for the Court to further assess any other requirement. Such limited assessment is in line with the purpose of an application for provisional measures and the procedural-economy of such proceedings which should not lead to a mini-trial on the merits.

The Brussels Local Division dismissed an application for provisional measures due to a lack of urgency. The applicant had argued that they could not have initiated proceedings before the unitary effect was registered but the court disagreed and deemed the date of the EP's grant to be decisive (which was much earlier). The Court dealt in detail with questions of jurisdiction (see the decision's headnotes) as well as the requirements for ordering provisional measures. The Court clarified that the lack of one of the requirements was sufficient and the proceedings regarding provisional measures should not be a "mini-trial on the merits".