Pierre Véron

Moteur de recherche
dans les décisions
de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet

Bienvenue dans ce moteur de recherche dans les décisions de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet (JUB)

À propos et fonctionnement

Cette base de données privée, maintenue par Pierre Véron, met gracieusement à votre disposition les décisions rendues publiques par la Juridiction unifiée du brevet depuis son entrée en activité le 1er juin 2023 et un moteur de recherche pour les explorer.

Elle contient aussi des traductions automatiques en anglais (de courtoisie et sans garantie)  des décisions qui n’ont pas été rendues en anglais (ainsi que quelques traductions automatiques en français).

Pour voir TOUTES les décisions disponibles, tapez une astérisque * dans la case Recherche globale.

Recherche par mots (“preuve”,“evidence” ou “beweis”) ou par expressions (“procédure accélérée”, “accelerated proceedings” ou “beschleunigtes verfahren”).

Utilisation possible des opérateurs booléens (en anglais et en majuscules) :

  • “test AND anticorps” , “test AND antibodies” ou “test AND antikörper”
  • “avocat OR représentant”,  “lawyer OR representative” ou “anwalt OR vertreter”

  • “test AND NOT anticorps”, “test AND NOT antibodies” ou “test AND NOT antikörper”

Joker pour un caractère: ? Joker pour plusieurs caractères: *

Pour plus d’informations sur la syntaxe de recherche cliquez ici


701 résultats trouvés




Date
Parties
Numéro de l'affaire
Numéro de registre
Numéro de la décision ou de l'ordonnance
Type d'action
Juridiction - Division
Langue de procédure
Sommaire
Mots clés
Documents
Date Parties Numéro de l'affaire Numéro de registre Numéro de la décision ou de l'ordonnance Type d'action Juridiction - Division Langue de procédure Details Sommaire Mots clés Documents
12/02/2025 Daedalus Prime LLC v. Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH UPC_CoA_621/2024 APL_58177/2024 ORD_68947/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
Anglais flag EN
12/02/2025 Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v. ***, SWAT Medical AB UPC_CoA_636/2024 ORD_7289/2025 ORD_7289/2025 Generic Order Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English - Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC. - Representation is a point of admissibility involving public policy considerations (due process) which the Court may examine at any time, also of its own motion. Representation
Anglais flag EN
12/02/2025 Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v. ***, SWAT Medical AB UPC_CoA_635/2024 ORD_7284/2025 ORD_7284/2025 Generic Order Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English - Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC. - Representation is a point of admissibility involving public policy considerations (due process) which the Court may examine at any time, also of its own motion. Representation
Anglais flag EN
12/02/2025 Meril Italy Srl v. ***, SWAT Medical AB UPC_CoA_634/2024 ORD_64355/2024 ORD_64355/2024 Generic Order Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English - Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC. - Representation is a point of admissibility involving public policy considerations (due process) which the Court may examine at any time, also of its own motion. Representation
Anglais flag EN
12/02/2025 Biolitec Holding Gmbh & Co. Kg v. S.I.A. Lightguide International, Light Guide Optics Germany Gmbh UPC_CFI_714/2024 App_67626/2024 ORD_68717/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
12/02/2025 Apple Inc., Apple Gmbh, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. Kg, Apple Retail France Eurl, Apple Distribution International Ltd. v. Ona Patents Sl UPC_CFI_99/2024 App_4511/2025 ORD_4743/2025 Application RoP262A Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
12/02/2025 Syngenta Limited v. Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited UPC_CFI_566/2024 ACT_53813/2024 ORD_68881/2024 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English 1. The date for the Interim Conference via videoconference is set for 6 October 2025, 10.00 a.m. 2. Suggestions for topics for the Interim Conference may be submitted until 19 September 2025. 3. The date for the Oral Hearing in person at Denisstr. 3 in Munich, room 212 and overflow room 220b, is set for 10 December 2025, 9.00 a.m. 4. The parties are summoned to the Interim Conference and the Oral Hearing. 5. The Judge-Rapporteur requests the President of the Court of First Instance to assign Judge Dorland-Galliot to the panel as a technically qualified judge pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure. scheduling
Anglais flag EN
11/02/2025 Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation UPC_CoA_563/2024 APL_53716/2024 ORD_68946/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English No corporate representative of a legal person or any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person, whether as a result of holding a high-level management or administrative position or holding a significant amount of shares in the legal person, may serve as a representative of that legal person, regardless of whether said corporate representative of the legal person or natural person is qualified to act as a UPC representative in accordance with Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA. • One of the objectives of parties being represented by a lawyer is, among other things, to ensure that legal persons are defended by a representative who is sufficiently distant from the legal person which he or she represents. • The independent exercise of the duties of a representative is not undermined by the mere fact that the lawyer or the European patent attorney, qualified as a representative under Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA, is employed by the party he or she represents. • A representative who is employed by a party must act towards the Court as an independent counsellor by serving the interests of his or her client in an unbiased manner without regard to his or her personal feelings or interests, pursuant to Art. 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct for Representatives who appear before the Court according to R. 290.2 RoP. Representation of parties in proceedings before the UPC, Art. 48 UPCA
Anglais flag EN
10/02/2025 Dolby International v. ASUS UPC_CFI_456/2023 App_68380/2024 ORD_68548/2024 Application Rop 265 Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
10/02/2025 AIM Sport Vision AG v TGI Sport Suomi Oy (previously Supponor Oy), TGI Sport Virtual Limited (previously Supponor Limited), Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL UPC_CFI_214/2023 App_3474/2025 ORD_6926/2025 Generic application Court of First Instance - Helsinki (FI) Local Division English The Court may add a party to the case when the right of defence of defendants, including the new party, are sufficiently guaranteed (R. 305 RoP). When considering the leave to amend the case or to change the claims (R. 263 RoP) the risk of irreconcilable and inconsistent decisions from different courts favours allowing the changes but at the same time protecting the frontloaded procedure of the UPC and the rights of the defendants to defend themselves must be the leading principles. The amendments to the case must be explained in R. 263 RoP application but can be detailed in an appendix. Change in parties, Leave to change claim or amend case
Anglais flag EN
10/02/2025 Dolby International v. ASUS UPC_CFI_456/2023 App_67764/2024 ORD_68550/2024 Application Rop 265 Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
08/02/2025 Motorola Mobility LLC v. Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson GmbH UPC_CFI_488/2023 App_1202/2025 ORD_6639/2025 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
07/02/2025 Dainese v. Alpinestars S.P.A. Alpinestars S.p.A. Alpinestars Research S.p.A. Omnia Retail S.r.l. Horizon Moto 95 - Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K. Motocard Bike S.l. UPC_CFI_472/2024 App_5885/2025 ORD_5965/2025 Generic application Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section English 1. The position of the party attacking the patent shall be protected in the proceedings to the same extent as that of the party defending the patent. 2. Using the power of case management, which includes encouraging the parties to cooperate with each other during the proceedings (see Rule 332(a) of the Rules of Procedure), and pursuant to Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the parties are invited to submit a -possibly joint -request for the alignment of future procedural deadlines RULE 332 ROP. RULE 9, para 4, ROP,
Anglais flag EN
06/02/2025 Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., Orope Germany Gmbh UPC_CFI_210/2023 ACT_545551/2023 ORD_6393/2025 Counterclaim for revocation Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German Finale redigierte Fassung der SEP-Entscheidung der Lokalkammer Mannheim vom 22. November 2024 nach Abstimmung mit den Parteien  
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
05/02/2025 Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson GmbH v. Motorola Mobility Llc UPC_CFI_740/2024 App_368/2025 ORD_6152/2025 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English 1. A Preliminary objection can also be raised with regard to a counterclaim for revocation. 2. Art. 33 (2) UPCA must be interpreted in such a way that this provision is not only applicable if an action between the same parties on the same patent is brought before several different divisions, but equally if an action between the same parties on the same patent is brought twice before the same division (argumentum a fortiori). 3. In the event of a decision of the judge-rapporteur allowing the Preliminary objection concerning a counterclaim for revocation there is no legal basis for a separate decision on the costs relating to this objection. counterclaim for revocation, preliminary objection
Anglais flag EN
05/02/2025 Hurom Co., Ltd v. NUC Electronics, Warmcook UPC_CFI_163/2024 App_4027/2025 ORD_4336/2025 Generic application Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
05/02/2025 Ericsson Gmbh, Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson UPC_CFI_740/2024 App_3212/2025 ORD_6149/2025 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
05/02/2025 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.R.L. UPC_CFI_501/2023 ACT_597277/2023 ORD_598573/2023 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English summons to oral hearing  
Anglais flag EN
04/02/2025 Panasonic Holdings Corporation UPC_CFI_218/2023 App_67930/2024 ORD_68911/2024 Application Rop 265 Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German 1. Im Rahmen der Anwendung der Gebührenerstattungstatbestände der Regel 370.9(b) und (c) VerfO kommt es auf den materiellen Stand des Verfahrens an. 2. Insbesondere in komplexen Verfahren, die durch eine Vielzahl von begleitenden Geheimnisschutz- und Vorlageanträgen gekennzeichnet sind, kommt eine Kürzung oder Verweigerung der Gebührenerstattung nach Regel 370.9(e) VerfO in Betracht. Kürzung oder Verweigerung der Gebührenerstattung
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
03/02/2025 Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.,v. Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Powerdeal Srl, Libra Energy, VDH Solar Groothandel, Coenergia Srl UPC_CFI_336/2024_UPC_CFI_605/2024 App_1872/2025 ORD_3004/2025 Generic application Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
03/02/2025 Panasonic Holdings Corporation UPC_CFI_219/2023 App_67924/2024 ORD_68886/2024 Application Rop 265 Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German 1. Auch bei Erhöhung des Streitwerts einer Verletzungsklage verbleibt es bei der Rücknahme (auch) der Nichtigkeitswiderklage trotz der Erhöhung bei einer Rückerstattung aufgrund R 370.6 VerfO. 2.Bei Rücknahme erst kurz vor einem den Parteien mitgeteilten Termin zur Verkündung einer Entscheidung kommt eine Verweigerung oder Kürzung der Rückerstattung nach Regel 370.9(e)VerfO in Betracht. Rücknahme Nichtigkeitswiderklage Streitwerterhöhung
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
03/02/2025 Panasonic Holdings Corporation UPC_CFI_210/2023 App_67470/2024 ORD_68887/2024 Application Rop 265 Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German Bei Rücknahme einer Klage nach Verkündung der Endentscheidung findet eine Gebührenerstattung nicht statt. Rücknahme Gebührenerstattung Endentscheidung
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
31/01/2025 Rematec Gmbh & Co Kg v. Europe Forestry B.V. UPC_CFI_340/2023 ACT_576606/2023 ORD_598550/2023 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
30/01/2025 Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak Gmbh, Kodak Holding Gmbh, Kodak Graphic Communications Gmbh UPC_CFI_365/2023 ACT_578818/2023 ORD_598571/2023 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
30/01/2025 Adeia Guides Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited UPC_CFI_665/2024 App_4703/2025 ORD_5020/2025 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English   deadline extension
Anglais flag EN
1 2 ... 29