STOCKHOLM REGIONAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Peter Kenamets, Fredrik Lüning and Linnéa Hedström, Lind Edlund Kenamets Intellectual Property AB
• Abbott v Dexcom – 19 December 2024 (infringement and counterclaim); • Edwards v Meril et al EP3769722 – 16 Janu - ary 2025 (infringement and counterclaim); • Texport v Sioen – 11 February 2025 (infringe - ment); and • Viking v Stanley Black & Decker et al – 25 March 2025 (infringement and counterclaim). Expert Hearing – One: • Abbott v Dexcom – 18 December 2024 (full- day hearing prior to oral hearing). Interim Conferences – Four: • Abbot v Dexcom – 30 September 2024; • Texport v Sioen – 16 October 2024; • Edwards v Meril et al EP3769722 – 5 Novem - ber 2024; and • Viking v Stanley Black & Decker et al – 26 February 2025. 2.3 Case Classification If infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation concerning the same dispute are grouped and treated as a single case, nine pro - ceedings have been commenced before the NBRD. Two-thirds of these cases fall under IPC Class A (Human Necessities). However, this concentra - tion does not primarily relate to pharmaceuticals, but rather to medical devices, as well as cases involving biotechnology and gaming technology. The remaining cases are spread across other IPC classifications, including Class B (Performing Operations; Transporting), Class C (Chemistry; Metallurgy), and Class E (Fixed Constructions).
Notably, the strong presence of cases in Class G (Physics) and Class H (Electricity) – which can be observed across other UPC Divisions – has not yet materialised before the NBRD. 2.4 Time Lines Timelines and Hearings before the NBRD To date, five cases before the NBRD have either proceeded to oral hearing or have one sched - uled. In three of these cases, the oral hearing took place within 14 months of the lodging of the statement of claim. A fourth hearing was held after approximately 16 months, while the fifth, scheduled 18 months after filing, had been stayed for eight of those months due to pend - ing opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO). All oral hearings have been concluded within a single day. In one matter, four expert witnesses were heard the day prior to the hearing itself, indicating flexibility in the scheduling approach to accommodate evidentiary needs. Given that the UPC remains in its initial opera - tional phase, these timelines suggest that the NBRD is largely succeeding in adhering to the timeframe set out in the Rules of Procedure – namely, that the oral hearing should be held within 12 months of the filing of the statement of claim. This is broadly consistent with what might be expected in national Swedish proceedings, where a hearing within one year is also common, absent delays caused, for example, by proce - dural complexity. Moreover, concerns that oral hearings might extend significantly in length, contrary to the UPC’s stated aims, appear to be unsubstanti - ated at this stage.
126 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook