NL – Longhi Trading v. Hanwa Solutions

Posted: October 12th, 2021

Longhi (Netherlands) Trading B.V. v. Hanwa Solutions Corporation, PI Judge District Court Rotterdam, 1 October 2021, Case no. ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:9551

Proceedings regarding solar panels. Longhi’s solar panels are stored in the Netherlands and distributed worldwide from the Netherlands. A cross border injunction is issued against Longi forbidding Longi to infringe Hanwa’s patents, or to be involved with such infringement. The injunction is not based on patent infringement (the Netherlands is not one of the designated countries of the patent), but is based on unlawful act.

The PI judge rules that it is plausible that the Opposition Division will maintain the Patent in the form as currently defended by Hanwa. That the Patent in suit is infringed abroad is also sufficinetly plausible. The PI judge refers to the judgment of the experienced judges in the Landgericht Düsseldorf with respect to infringement. Hanwa has an interest in an injunction, as Longhi threatens to facilitate patent infringement in various countries.

The PI judge forbids Longhi to to provoke, promote, facilitate, and/or profit (consciously, systematically and calculatingly) from such infringement in various European countries.

The judgment (in Dutch) can be read here.

One Response

  1. Attentive Observer says:

    The problem is that the OD has not actually decided maintenance of the patent in amended form according to AR7. The adaptation of the description was not carried during the OP before the OD.
    Longi has intervened in the opposition proceedings after the decision was announced but not yet signified. It is established case law that once the decision has been announced the ED cannot change it. The OD has thus to take a decision upon the admissibility of the intervention. Even if the decision is negative, it is to be expected that Longi will appeal.
    There are actually 5 opponents and 3 intervener.
    In view of the situation it is clear that an appeal will be filed be it for the non admissibility of any intervention, or from both the parties.
    The fate of the patent is thus very uncertain.
    Why on Earth did a judge accorded a PI as there is not patent valid in the NL and the probability of an appeal is more than likely?
    And an appeal against the PI can also be filed.

Leave a Reply