2024-06-04 - LD Hamburg - Avago Technologies v. Tesla - UPC_CFI_54/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_54/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
Kernaussage: 1.
2024-06-04 - LD Hamburg - Avago Technologies
v.
Tesla - UPC_CFI_54/2023
1. In principle, the legitimacy to assert claims arising from European patents depends on the
from European patents depends on the substantive entitlement. The entry in the patent register
has a considerable indicative effect, Rule 8.5 RoP.
2. Applicant relies on an intra-company or intra-group formation of will for its substantive entitlement by virtue of a transfer of rights, which is completely beyond the knowledge of the other party, the order for the submission of the related the order to produce the related documents on request may be justified,
Rule 190.1 VerfO.
notable
The Hamburg Local Division partially granted the Tesla defendants' application under Rule 190.1 RoP to compel Avago to produce four internal Avago-group board resolutions referenced in the powers of attorney (Annexes EIP 11 and EIP 12) that underpin the standing of the claimant Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. The Court began from the proposition that standing to assert claims from a European patent depends on substantive entitlement, for which register entry carries considerable indicative effect under R. 8.5 RoP (citing BGH, X ZR 69/11 — Fräsverfahren — and extending the Court of Appeal's reasoning on unitary patents under R. 8.4 RoP from UPC_CoA 335/2023). Because intra-group decision-making is wholly outside the defendants' sphere, and the patentee itself relies on those decisions via the powers of attorney in the record, R. 190.1 RoP production is justified for the board resolutions authorising sub-delegation on both sides and authorising the outbound transfer. Production concerning Avago General IP's receipt of the patent was refused: the authorisation clause in Annex EIP 11 applies only to 'Patent IP owned by the Company', not to inbound receipts. This Hamburg order of 4 June 2024 preceded and was explicitly followed by the Munich Local Division's identical order of 6 June 2024 in the related UPC_CFI_52/2023.
Stichwörter
Rule 190.1 RoP Submission of evidence; Rule 8.5 (c) RoP Presumption of ownership
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (German).