LISBON LOCAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Joana Piriquito Santos, Beatriz Lima and Sara Nazaré, NLP
3.3 Pending Cases An infringement/damages claim is pending between Ericsson against ASUSTeK before the Lisbon Local Division. 3.4 Technically Qualified Judges In the context of the application for provisional measures between Ericsson and ASUSTeK, DigitalRiver and Arvato, where issues of valid - ity and infringement were at stake, a techni - cally qualified judge (Johannes Mesa Pascasio) was appointed. This judge participated as a full member of the panel, asking questions directly to the parties’ representatives, as no experts or witnesses were appointed to attend the hearing. Given the uniqueness of this case, no general pattern can yet be identified. 3.5 Influence of Prior Local Practice on Substantive Legal Decisions Due to the limited number of cases handled so far by the Lisbon Local Division, it is not yet pos - sible to discern any consistent trends that could be attributed to local judicial practice. 3.6 Court of Appeal Substantive Jurisprudence No information is available for this jurisdiction.
the main issues raised concerned added matter, lack of novelty, and inventive step. In the application for provisional measures filed by Boehringer against Zentiva before the Lis - bon Local Division, which was denied in the first instance, the discussions focused on what could constitute the basis for granting a preliminary injunction in the pharma sector. No arguments on validity were raised in that case. 3.2 Leading Cases In the Ericsson v ASUSTeK/Arvato/Digital River provisional measures request, which was denied on the basis of lack of urgency, the Lisbon Local Division – in its decision dated 15 October 2024 – also addressed the technical merits of the case. On the acts of infringement, the court held as follows. • “Offering entails marketing, promoting, advertising, and providing the client with the product to be sold and making it available to the relevant public. If the product is avail - able to the public and perceived as such, it is undoubtably being offered (LD Düsseldorf, 18 October 2023, UPC_CFI_177/2023)” • “For the purposes of Article 25 (a) of the UPCA, it is irrelevant whether the public is able to determine, on the basis of the infor- mation provided on the website, whether the products in question fall within the claims of the Patent.” • “An intermediary serves as a link, or part of the chain, between the infringer and the public.”
4. Procedural Issues 4.1 Hearing Structure
The two main oral hearings that took place in the Lisbon Local Division had two judges in com - mon: the president of the division, Rute Lopes, and Petri Rinkinen. In both of those cases, the court notified in advance on the general structure of the hear - ing: time to present arguments, clarification on
102 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook