Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 DECEMBER 2024

UPC Sets Out Burden Of Proof Requirements For Permanent Injunctions

Marks & Clerk
Marks & Clerk
Contributor
Marks & Clerk

Marks & Clerk

Marks & Clerk LLP was founded in 1887 by George Croydon Marks, who was joined in partnership by...

View firm profile
Explore more from Marks & Clerk

The Milan UPC upheld Oerlikon's patent infringement claims against Bhagat, granting permanent injunctions for established and potential future acts of infringement. Bhagat failed to sufficiently prove the absence of risk for further violations.

United KingdomIntellectual Property

On 4 November, the Milan Local Division of the UPC handed down their final decision in the Oerlikon v Bhagat infringement action. This action commenced not long after the UPC opened its doors, with Oerlikon filing a request for the collection of evidence in June 2023, after Bhagat exhibited a texturing machine at the ITMA exhibition that Oerlikon alleged was an infringement of their patent.

Bhagat did not dispute either the validity of the patent, nor that the machine they displayed infringed it, and in light of this the Panel found them to have infringed Oerlikon's patent. Bhagat argued, however, that they had no knowledge of the patent and had not marketed any copies of the machine in UPC countries in which the patent was in force.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from