Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v. RiVOLUTiON GmbH, Order UPC CFI, Local Division The Hague, 29 August 2024, Case no.UPC_CFI_374/2025
The Court finds that there is no urgency as Cilag acted with unreasonable delay in requesting provisional measures.
“In view of the above, the Court establishes the day on which the applicant became aware, or should have become aware, of (imminent) infringement by Rivolution in a way that would enable it, in accordance with R. 206.2 RoP, to file an Application for provisional measures against Rivolution, relevant for establishing undue delay, in this case on 11 November 2024 at the latest.”
“When Rivolution replied timely on 20 February 2025 that it did not believe the injunction would hold, because EP 360 is likely to be invalidated as the Chinese equivalent was invalidated by the CPO, Cilag also did not take action immediately. Cilag claim that they needed time to study their patent portfolio and do a formal infringement analysis, before they asserted infringement of six further patents, including EP 262, in a letter to Rivolution of 26 March 2026 (in reply to Rivolution’s response of 20 February 2025). It then took until the end of April, 29 April 2025, to file this application for provisional measures based on EP 262, a divisional of EP 360.”
A copy of the Order can be read here.
