In its Order of 11 December 2024 in UPC_CFI_791/2024 (Munich Local Division), the Unified Patent Court (UPC) granted an ex parte anti-anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction (AASI/AAEI) to prevent steps in US proceedings that were said to obstruct UPC patent enforcement. The decision is noteworthy for its articulation of the UPC’s jurisdictional basis and the procedural framework for such relief as interim measures.
Background
The applicant (Huawei) relied on two European patents (EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321) declared essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. The respondents (Netgear group entities) were alleged to market Wi-Fi 6 products in Europe and to have been engaged in broader multi-forum disputes with Huawei, including pending UPC infringement actions relating to the same parties and patents.
Huawei submitted that Netgear had filed (or was about to pursue) an application in a US antitrust case seeking an anti-suit injunction and/or anti-enforcement injunction (ASI/AEI) that would prevent Huawei from continuing UPC proceedings and/or enforcing UPC decisions. Huawei sought interim measures before the Munich Local Division to neutralise that risk.
Key findings of the decision
The Court held that the UPC’s international jurisdiction followed from Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 71b(2) Brussels Ia Regulation, based on the place where the threatened tort (interference with patent enforcement) would occur. It further held that actions for provisional and protective measures fall within Article 32(1) UPCA, and that the requested AASI/AAEI could qualify as such a measure where it is sufficiently linked to a patent dispute within UPC competence.
The Court treated the application as urgent (Rule 209.2(b) RoP), with urgency assessed from the applicant’s knowledge of the ASI/AEI request and the procedural posture of the US matter.
The Order was made by the presiding judge as a single judge under Rule 208.2 RoP, and the Court considered it appropriate to proceed without hearing the respondents under Rules 206.3, 209.2(c) and 212.1 RoP, citing a risk of irreparable harm if delay enabled the respondents to obtain accelerated US measures.
The respondents were enjoined, under threat of a penalty payment, from pursuing the identified US ASI/AEI application or equivalent measures, with provision addressing influence over affiliated companies. The Court provided for penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 (in the operative part, framed per day of violation) and required a security deposit of EUR 3,000,000 within 20 days, while making the Order initially enforceable immediately.
Analysis and implications
The Order confirms that the UPC will characterise efforts to restrain UPC litigation or enforcement through foreign ASI/AEI mechanisms as a threatened interference with the patentee’s enforceable rights, capable of grounding interim relief under the UPCA framework. It also indicates that the Court will treat AASI/AAEI applications as falling within Article 32(1) UPCA where the relief is tightly connected to protecting UPC jurisdiction over patent disputes.
Procedurally, the decision illustrates how the UPC may address timing pressure through single-judge determination, ex parte handling, and substantial security, while expressly limiting the wording of relief to the UPC’s subject-matter scope under the UPCA.
Conclusion
In UPC_CFI_791/2024 (Munich Local Division, 11 December 2024), the UPC granted ex parte interim measures restraining pursuit of foreign ASI/AEI steps aimed at hindering UPC proceedings and enforcement. The decision sets out a structured route to AASI/AAEI relief grounded in the UPC’s jurisdiction over interim measures, coupled with urgency analysis, ex parte safeguards, and security.
