UPC_CoA_691/2024 – Magna v Valeo
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Mechanics
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Obvious mistake in judgment Background and decision The Court of First Instance (“CFI”) granted a PI against Magna on 8 October 2024. However, the CFI exempted the existing supply obligations of Magna to BMW, as not being able to fulfil these obligations would result in significant harm. The exemption was supposed to cover all BMW models equipped with the Magna device, but one model was not mentioned because of an “obvious slip”. On 6 November 2024, Magna filed an application for correction (R. 353 RoP) at the CFI. The CFI granted Valeo two weeks to respond. Valeo responded, but at the same time (on 13 November 2024) posted the bond necessary for execution of the PI and indicated that it would execute the order. As the case was now extremely urgent, the standing judge of the Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect of the PI, until the CFI has decided on the request for correction, insofar as the exception to the injunction issued therein does not include the “BMW series Gran Coupé model”. Comment: 1. An understandable and very quick decision (within a day) of the standing judge. That is exactly the situation for which the position of the standing judge was created in the Rules of Procedure (R. 223.4 RoP). 2. Although many judges of the Court of Appeal master various languages, it is prudent to make such a very urgent request in English, as all judges master English. 3. One wonders if such a situation could not have been resolved in a more practical way, e.g.: a. by the representative of Valeo, by simply confirming to the representative of Magna that Valeo accepted that the forgotten model was also covered by the exemption; or b. by the CFI, by not granting Valeo two weeks but 24 hours to respond, and then immediately correct the obvious mistake. 4. Valeo choose to try to benefit from the obvious mistake. This decision shows that the RoP (and the Court of Appeal) make it possible to prevent that.
Full Decision Text
UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_691/2024 App_61002/2024 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 November 2024 concerning an application for suspensive effect (R.223.4 RoP) APPLICANTS AND DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI 1. Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Untergruppenbach, Germany 2. Magna PT s.r.o., Kechnec, Slovak Republic 3. Magna International France, SARL, Biévres, France hereinafter also referred to as “Magna” all represented by: Klaus Haft, Attorney-at-law, Hoyng ROKH Monegier, Munich, Germany Sabine Agé, Caroline Levesque, Lonni Bas, Laurène Borey, Attorneys-at-laws, Hoyng ROKH Monegier, Paris, France Sebastian Kratzer, Sven Krause, Max von Leitner, Elisa In den Birken, Chiara Prinz, Attorneys-at-laws, Hoyng, ROKH, Monegier, Düsseldorf, Germany Dr. Wolfgang Kellenter, Dr. Matthias Rothkopf, David Rüther, Nina Mackenstedt, Attorneys-at-laws Hengeler Mueller, Düsseldorf RESPONDENT AND APPLICANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI Valeo Electrification, Cergy, France hereinafter also referred to as “Valeo” represented by: Tilmann Felix Roediger, Jonas Smeets, and Fabian Saupe, Attorneys-at-law, Bird & Bird LLP, Düsseldorf, Germany PATENT AT ISSUE EP 3 320 602 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English DECIDING JUDGE This order was issued by Rian Kalden, Standing judge IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ORD_56545/2024 in the main proceedings concerning provisional measures in ACT_37931/2024 UPC_CFI_347/2024, issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf on 31 October 2024. 1 PARTY’S REQUEST Magna applies for suspensive effect of the impugned order. PARTY SUBMISSIONS Magna, in short and insofar as relevant states as follows: - In weighing interests, the CFI found that a preliminary injunction covering Magna’s supply obligations existing on 8 October 2024 regarding several BMW models would result in significant harm. For that reason, in the impugned order several existing BMW models equipped with the accused embodiments were excepted from the injunction, such that the provisional measures would only prevent Magna from equipping further models with the accused embodiments. - - - - The impugned order thus intended to list all models currently equipped with the accused embodiments for which delivery obligations existed on 8 October 2024, but forgot to mention BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé. The incomplete exception of BMW models in the impugned order is in clear contradiction to the Courts reasoning and therefore constitutes an “obvious slip” that needs to be rectified according to R. 353 RoP. On 6 November 2024, Magna filed an application for correction in that respect (R.353 RoP). By order of 7 November 2024, Valeo was granted an opportunity to comment by 19 November 2024. Valeo already commented on 12 November 2024. It served bank guarantees for enforcement securities on Magna’s representatives on 13 November 2024, i.e. prior to a decision of the CFI on the application for correction. Until and unless the obvious slip is rectified, the impugned order as it stands is manifestly wrong. Since Valeo has indicated its intention to execute this order, Magna has an urgent interest that the order be suspended. REASONS Under the circumstances stated by Magna, the Standing judge of the Court of Appeal considers that Magna's interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on the request for correction is rendered exceptionally outweighs Valeo's interest in immediate enforcement and that it is appropriate that the impugned order is granted suspensive effect until the Court of First instance has decided on the request for correction, insofar as the exception to the injunction issued therein does not include the “BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé” model. ORDER The effect of the impugned order is suspended until the Court of First instance has decided on the request for correction, insofar as the exception to the injunction issued therein does not include the “BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé” model. Issued on 14 November 2024, Rian Kalden Standing Judge
Key Holdings
- The standing judge of the Court of Appeal can grant suspensive effect to a preliminary injunction (PI) in urgent situations, particularly when an obvious mistake in the CFI's judgment needs correction.
- An application for correction under R. 353 RoP should be handled expeditiously by the Court of First Instance.
- The role of the standing judge (R. 223.4 RoP) is critical for providing swift procedural relief in highly urgent cases.
- The Rules of Procedure and the Court of Appeal can prevent parties from exploiting obvious mistakes in judgments for tactical advantage.
Tags
- Court of Appeal
- Preliminary Injunction
- Procedural Issues
- Urgency