STOCKHOLM REGIONAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Peter Kenamets, Fredrik Lüning and Linnéa Hedström, Lind Edlund Kenamets Intellectual Property AB
There is, however, a note of caution. The NBRD has not yet delivered its first decision on the merits. According to the Rules of Procedure, decisions on the merits are expected within six weeks of the oral hearing. In April 2025, one decision on the merits had been delayed by eight weeks, and another by four weeks. It remains to be seen whether this will become a pattern or is merely a reflection of early-phase operational constraints. It is also worth noting that the NBRD has twice refused to stay proceedings on the grounds of parallel EPO opposition proceedings. In one of those cases, the NBRD’s oral hearing was scheduled to occur at the same time as the EPO hearing. This can be seen as a stricter approach to the stay of proceedings than that adopted under Swedish national practice, where stays are sometimes granted. 2.5 Interaction Between Central and Local/Regional Divisions The cases initiated before the NBRD thus far exhibit a clear litigation pattern, which may be summarised as follows. Infringement actions are almost invariably fol - lowed by a counterclaim for revocation. These counterclaims for revocation are, in turn, nearly always followed by an application by the patent holder to amend the patent. In at least one case, the defendant in the infringe - ment action has pursued both a counterclaim for revocation and a central revocation action. In another case, the defendant has initiated both a revocation action and a declaratory action of non-infringement before a national court. This has led to various preliminary issues for the NBRD to address – most notably, questions of litis pendens and stay of proceedings.
In one or more cases, applications for provi - sional measures or for preservation of evidence have been filed, but the proceedings were sub - sequently discontinued without further litigation.
3. Substantive Law 3.1 Topics Covered
The matters addressed in cases conducted before the NBRD to date can be broadly sum - marised as follows. • Edwards v Meril (EP 2 628 464) – the Division has addressed issues including the staying of proceedings pending a written decision by the EPO Boards of Appeal in opposition proceedings, amended statements of claim and defence, and public access to pleadings and evidence. • Ocado v Autostore (EP 3 653 540) – the Divi - sion considered matters relating to the reim - bursement of fees and public access to docu - ments, specifically the statement of claim. • Edwards v Meril (EP 3 769 722) – issues addressed include security for legal costs, stay of proceedings, application to amend the patent, assessment of inventive step, the doctrine of equivalence (considered not to constitute an amendment of the action), appointment of a court expert, offer to hear party experts, potential referral to the CJEU, bifurcation and legal costs in relation to public access requests. • Abbott v Dexcom (EP 3 977 921) – the Divi - sion has considered, among other things, an application to amend the patent, leave to amend the action, adjustment of relief sought, default decision on a counterclaim for revoca - tion, provision of information on distribution channels, security for costs, examination of party-appointed experts, filing of physical
127 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook