Case Law
Article 63: Permanent injunctions

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division, Order dated 24/04/2025, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v. Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd. (Case/ Registry number : ACT_588685/2023, ORD_598601/2023)
Example of decision on application of the principle of proportionality in setting penalty payments : "The Court considers that the request for an injunction under Article 63 UPCA is justified and will be ordered in the terms specified in the operative part of this decision. For reasons of effectiveness, this permanent injunction will be accompanied by a penalty payment to be paid to the Court as provided for in Article 63. 2 UPCA, however, the amount will be limited in accordance with the principle of proportionality in view of the price of the chips in question (the unit sale price of which is between 2.60 and 4.70 euros according to the invoices in Exhibit 7 of SEOUL VIOSYS) and the penalty payment set at 50 euros per infringing product."

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 15/11/2024, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CFI_15/2023, ORD_598479/2023)
Example of decision onthe interests of third parties in regard of procedures for implementing corrective measures: "In regard of procedures for implementing corrective measures, Article 64(4) of the UPCA explicitly mentions the interests of third parties. While the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court do not explicitly mention the interests of third parties or the public otherwise, these interests may be considered when exercising the discretion stipulated by the ’may’ in Articles 64(4), A. 63(1) and 64(1) UPCA, respectively."