|
06/05/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_223/2023 |
ORD_25614/2024 |
Rule 264 Order |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
06/05/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_223/2023 |
ORD_25608/2024 |
Rule 264 Order |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
06/05/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_218/2023 |
ORD_25617/2024 |
Rule 264 Order |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
06/05/2024 |
Photon Wave, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components |
UPC_CFI_440/2023 |
ORD_18404/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
Français |
|
|
|
|
|
06/05/2024 |
Bhagat Textile Engineers v. Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG |
UPC_CFI_223/2025 |
ORD_23384/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
Italian |
|
|
|
|
|
02/05/2024 |
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v. AWM, Schnell |
UPC_CoA_177/2024 |
APL_20002/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
30/04/2024 |
10x Genomics, Inc. v. Curio Bioscience Inc. |
UPC_CFI_463/2023 |
ORD_598272/2023 |
Application for provisional measures |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. Ist eine Person bei einem Europäischen Patent im jeweiligen nationalen Register als Patentinhaber eingetragen, besteht eine widerlegbare Vermutung dafür, dass die im jeweiligen nationalen Register eingetragene Person zur Eintragung berechtigt ist (R. 8.5 (c) VerfO). Eine solche gesetzliche Vermutung hat hinsichtlich der vermuteten Tatsache eine Umkehr der Darlegungs- und Beweislast zur Folge. Kann der Antragsteller auf seine Eintragung in den für den jeweiligen Rechtsstreit maßgeblichen Registern verweisen, ist es an der Antragsgegnerseite, darzulegen und gegebenenfalls zu beweisen, dass dem Antragsteller die Berechtigung für eine solche Eintragung fehlt. 2. Enthält ein Patentanspruch Zweckangaben, dienen diese üblicherweise dem besseren Verständnis der Erfindung. Sie haben im Regelfall mittelbar die Wirkung, den durch das Patent geschützten Gegenstand dahingehend zu definieren, dass er nicht nur die räumlich-körperlichen Merkmale erfüllen, sondern auch ausgebildet sein muss, um für den im Patentanspruch angegebenen Zweck verwendbar zu sein. 3. Fehlt es an einer positiven Kenntnis des Antragstellers von einer Schutzrechtsverletzung, steht einer solchen Kenntnis eine grob fahrlässige Unkenntnis oder das bewusste Verschließen der Augen vor einer Schutzrechtsverletzung gleich. Eine allgemeine Marktbeobachtungspflicht des Patentinhabers besteht nicht. Sobald der Schutzrechtsinhaber jedoch konkrete Umstände kennt, die eine Verletzung seines Schutzrechts naheliegend erscheinen lassen, ist von ihm zu erwarten, dass er alle ihm ohne Weiteres zur Verfügung stehenden Maßnahmen ergreift und die Sachlage weiter aufklärt. Die Darlegung derartiger, eine Aufklärungspflicht auslösender Umstände obliegt der Antragsgegnerseite. 4. Während Art. 69 Abs. 4 EPÜ lediglich die Leistung einer Prozesskostensicherheit des Klägers vorsieht, erweitert R. 158 VerfO den Kreis der Adressaten einer solchen Anordnung auf „die Parteien“ und damit auch den Beklagten. In Eilverfahren besteht für eine (analoge) Anwendung der Norm vor dem Hintergrund des Eilcharakters derartiger Verfahren weder Raum noch im Hinblick auf R. 211.1 (d) VerfO ein Bedürfnis. |
Eilbedürftigkeit, Zweckangaben, Aktivlegitimation, fahrlässige Unkenntnis, Vermutung, Register, Prozesskostensicherheit, Kenntnis der Verletzung, Interessenabwägung |
|
|
30/04/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_218/2023 |
|
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
30/04/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_219/2023 |
|
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
30/04/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_223/2023 |
|
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
26/04/2024 |
AIM Sport Vision AG v. Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited |
|
ORD_23089/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
An ambiguity arising when reading Article 62 UPCA and Rules 220.1(c) and 224.1(b) RoP together, in combination with incorrect, or at least incomplete, information provided by the Court of First Instance, has led the appellant to believe that a two months’ time period applied for an appeal of an order. The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations requires that the appellant under the exceptional circumstances of this case is allowed to rely on the information provided by the Court of First Instance that the applicable time period for lodging the Statement of appeal was two months, when in fact it was 15 days. |
Time period for lodging a Statement of appeal pursuant to R.220.1(c) RoP in conjunction with Art. 62 UPCA |
|
|
25/04/2024 |
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v. Toyota Motor Europe |
|
ORD_18484/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
18/04/2024 |
Daedalus Prime LLC v. Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. |
|
ORD_20986/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
17/04/2024 |
Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc. |
|
ORD_18194/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
15/04/2024 |
Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics Sarl |
|
ORD_13321/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1-An application according to Art. 49 (5) UPCA and Rule 323.1 RoP can be made at any time until the Statement of Defence has to be lodged according to Rule 23 RoP. Should the different options offered by the RoP be provided with the purpose to reach an agreement on the language to be used before forwarding the request to the President of the CFI, this interpretation is not in contradiction with such aim as within the time-limit laid down in the RoP to lodge the Statement of Defence, it remains possible to file a procedural application pursuant R. 321 or 322 RoP and later on refer to R. 323. – 2. The decision whether or not to change the language of the proceedings into the language in which the patent was granted shall be determined with regard to the respective interests at stake, a fairness issue can occur if one party compared to the other(s), is remarkably disadvantaged by the conditions in which it has to organize its defence due to the language of the proceedings, strategical choices relating to the constitution of the team, although influencing the general management of the cases, is not obviously affecting the conditions under which the defence is exercised. |
language of the proceedings – admissibility and merits of the Application. |
|
|
15/04/2024 |
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v. Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH |
|
ORD_18121/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
11/04/2024 |
Neo Wireless v.Toyota Motor Europe |
|
ORD_19643/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
If an appeal is lodged under R.220.2 RoP and leave is granted in the impugned order itself, the Statement of appeal must be lodged within 15 days of service of that order containing the decision to grant leave. If the decision to grant leave to appeal is contained in a separate order on a request to that effect (which separate order must be issued within 15 days of the impugned order, cf R.220.3 RoP), the Statement of appeal has to be lodged within 15 days from the date of service of this separate order containing the decision to grant leave to appeal. |
Time period for filing a Statement of appeal under R.220.2 RoP |
|
|
11/04/2024 |
SVF Holdco v. ICPillar LLC |
|
ORD_18817/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
10/04/2024 |
Ocado Innovation Limited v. *** |
|
ORD_19369/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
- Art. 9(1) UPCA must be interpreted such that if the subject matter of the appeal proceedings is of a non-technical nature only, and there are no technical issues at stake, the Court of Appeal may decide the matter without the need to assign two technically qualified judges to its panel of three legally qualified judges. This is without prejudice to the fact that once technically qualified judges have been assigned, they will, as judges, have to deal with the entire dispute, including the non-technical aspects thereof. - When a request to make written pleadings and evidence available to a member of the public is made pursuant to R.262.1(b) RoP, the interests of a member of the public of getting access to the written pleadings and evidence must be weighed against the interests mentioned in Art. 45 UPCA. These interests include the protection of confidential information and personal data (’the interest of one of the parties or other affected persons’) but are not limited thereto. The general interest of justice and public order also have to be taken into account. The general interest of justice includes the protection of the integrity of proceedings. - A reasoned request under R.262.1(b) RoP is not the same, and has to be distinguished from, an application under R.262.3 RoP. |
Public access to written pleadings and evidence, R.262.1(b) RoP, Composition of the panel of the Court of Appeal, Art. 9(1) UPCA |
|
|
09/04/2024 |
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v. Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH |
|
ORD_13918/2024 |
Request to review an order ex-parte |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
09/04/2024 |
Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Shamrock Mobile GmbH |
|
ORD_18690/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
08/04/2024 |
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG /1. AWM S.R.L. 2 SCHNELL S.P.A. |
|
ORD_9710/2024 |
|
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
08/04/2024 |
Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril GmbH |
|
ORD_16799/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
04/04/2024 |
FUJIFILM Corporation |
UPC_CFI_355/2023 |
ORD_18050/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. R. 9.3 (a) of the Rules of Procedure authorises the Court to extend time periods. However, this possibility should only be used with caution and only in justified exceptional cases. 2. Such an exceptional case regularly exists if access to a pleading in the unredacted version was initially restricted to the representatives due to an application for protection of confidential information (R. 262A RoP). The only way to ensure that the party concerned can exchange information with its representatives, develop a strategy taking into account the arguments of the other party and, where necessary, provide technical and/or economic input, is to grant access to the information in question to the party's employees with the relevant knowledge. 3. The Rules of Procedure provide for a time period of two months for the filing of the Reply to the Statement of defence which includes a Counterclaim for revocation (R. 29 (a) RoP). This time period must be available to the claimant and its representatives in order to jointly develop a defence strategy based on all the facts and to file pleadings on the basis of that strategy. Therefore, an extension of the time period is, in principle, granted upon request. 4. The same applies to the Counterclaim for revocation. The principles of due process and the right to be heard require that a party must be able to reconcile its arguments on (non)-infringement with those on validity and possible amendment of the claims, in particular in its first submission on validity. |
R. 262A-Application, Extension of a time period |
|
|
03/04/2024 |
Juul Labs, Inc. v. NJOY Netherlands B.V |
|
ORD_598223/2023 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
DE
EN
FR
IT