In the first ever infringement proceeding before the Copenhagen Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, Vahterus Oy was on 15 January 2025 granted a permanent injunction prohibiting Euro Heat doo from making, offering, placing on the market or importing into the UPC Member States in which the patent in suit (EP 2673576) is in force heat exchangers falling within the scope of the patent (UPC_CFI_80/2024). The matter was handled by the Copenhagen Local Division, as the infringing products had been sold to a Danish company. Vahterus opted for a UPC claim rather than litigating the claim in Danish local courts due to the possibility of obtaining an injunction in several European countries in a single proceeding.
The injunction was rendered on the basis of Vahterus’s original Statement of Claim through a decision by default, as the counterparty did not submit a timely, valid response to the UPC. While Euro Heat did submit arguments to the Court contesting the jurisdiction of the UPC, they failed to appoint a qualified attorney, and to follow the procedural requirements required for challenging the Court’s jurisdiction. This was one of the decisions by default issued by the UPC.
Decision by default’s legal framework
The relevant provision for issuing a decision by default is Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP). A decision by default can be issued by the Court when specifically stipulated in the RoP or in case a party does not take a specific step within the applicable time limit. Also, a decision by default can be taken when a party fails to appear at the oral hearing.
If the decision is to be issued against the respective claimant of the action, there are no additional requirements that need to be fulfilled. In the event a decision by default is to be issued against the defendant, it may only be given where the facts submitted by the claimant are sufficient to justify the remedy and at least the time limit for filing a defense has expired. However, if the set requirements for decision by default have been met, issuing one still requires the court to exercise its discretion based on the specifics of the case at hand.
Decisions by default have been issued also in other cases than the Vahterus one in the following situations:
- Failure to submit Statement of Defense / Appeal Response
- Failure to provide Security for Costs
Closing remarks
The outcome in Vahterus case, as well as in other decisions by default, underscores the UPC’s ability to provide broad, efficient, and uniform protection across multiple jurisdictions through a single proceeding. For innovative companies operating internationally, the decision highlights the strategic value of patent protection and the advantages of the UPC system. The ruling also shows how even an SME-sized technology company can, together with an IP partner experienced patent litigation, effectively enforce its patent portfolio.'
This blog has been prepared in collaboration with Arttu Ahava.
