UPC: No obligation for suppliers of an allegedly infringing product and their customers to be joined in proceedings

In a recent procedural order issued by the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC (UPC_CFI_819/2024), the Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by three co-defendants during infringement proceedings relating to EP 3296274. The patent in suit, relates to alkali-free glass and a method of production thereof. In asserting their rights, the claimant chose to bring separate proceedings against the three groups of manufacturers of home entertainment equipment on one hand (the present case) and the alleged supplier of the contested glass sheets (used in the home entertainment equipment) located in China and Hong Kong on the other hand.

As part of the preliminary objection, the equipment manufacturing co-defendants requested that the two sets of proceedings between supplier of the glass sheets and the equipment producers be combined. As part of their reasoning, the defendants argued that the separate proceedings amounted to an artificial division of connected cases, and that this limited their capability to defend themselves. Additionally, Article 33(1)(b) UPCA was cited as legal basis for the preliminary objection, which stipulates that “[a]n action may be brought against multiple defendants only where the defendants have a commercial relationship and where the action relates to the same alleged infringement”. It was argued that this provision demands suing producer and supplier in one set of proceedings to establish a commercial relationship.

The Court did not follow this line of argumentation and ruled that there is no obligation to sue original equipment manufacturers and their suppliers in one proceeding. It was highlighted that there was nothing preventing the co-defendants from contacting their suppliers for information or conducting an analysis of their own products in order to put together their defence. Importantly, the Court also noted that enforcement of the patentee’s rights may be unduly delayed if the two proceedings were to be combined due to the time-consuming nature of effecting service abroad.