Search engine in the
Unified Patent Court’s decisions

Welcome to this search engine in the Unified Patent Court decisions

About and operation

This private database maintained by Pierre Véron provides a search engine in the text of the decisions published by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) since its inception on 1st June 2023 .

It also contains machine English translations (courtesy and without guarantee) of the decisions not rendered in English.

To see ALL the decisions available type an asterisk * in the Global search box .

Search by words (“preuve”,“evidence” or “beweis”) or expressions (“procédure accélérée”, “accelerated proceedings” or “beschleunigtes verfahren”)

Boolean operators can be used (in English and in upper case):

  • test AND anticorps” , “test AND antibodies” our“test AND antikörper
  • avocat OR représentant”,  “lawyer OR representative” or “anwalt OR vertreter
  • test AND NOT anticorps”, “test AND NOT antibodies” or “test AND NOT antikörper

Wildcard for one character: ? Wildcard for multiple characters: *

For more information on search syntax click here


228 results found




Date
Parties
Case number
Order/Decision reference
Type of action
Court - Division
Language of proceedings
Headnotes
Keynotes
Documents
Date Parties Case number Order/Decision reference Type of action Court - Division Language of proceedings Details Headnotes Keynotes Documents
28/05/2024 Carrier Corporation v. BITZER Electronics A/S ORD_25123/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English 1. Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP must be applied and interpreted in accordance with the fundamental right to an effective legal remedy and a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, to the extent that European Union Law is concerned, Article 47 of the Charter. These provisions must also be applied and interpreted in accordance with Articles 41(3), 42 and 52(1) UPCA on the basis of the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity (point 2 of the Preamble of the RoP). 2. In accordance with these principles, proceedings must be conducted in a way which will normally allow the final oral hearing at first instance to take place within one year whilst recognizing that complex actions may require more time and procedural steps, and simple actions less time and fewer procedural steps (point 7 of the Preamble of the RoP). Case management must be organized in accordance with this objective (point 7 of the Preamble of the RoP). It follows that, as a general principle, the Court will not stay proceedings. Otherwise, the Court cannot ensure that the final oral hearing will normally take place within one year. 3. The mere fact that the revocation proceedings before the UPC relate to a patent which is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO is not sufficient to allow an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay proceedings. The Convention on the Grant of European Patents and the UPCA allow third parties to challenge the validity of a patent in both opposition and revocation proceedings and allow them to initiate revocation proceedings while opposition proceedings relating to the same patent are pending. 4. The principle of avoiding irreconcilable decisions does not require that the UPC always stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings. Firstly, decisions in which the UPC and EPO issue different rulings on the revocation of a European patent are not irreconcilable. Where one body upholds the patent and the other revokes it, the latter decision will prevail. Secondly, the interests of harmonising decisions on the validity of a European patent can be promoted by ensuring that the body that decides last can take the decision of the body that decides first into account in its decision. That means that the interests of harmonisation in general do not require a stay by the UPC where it can be expected that the UPC will issue its decision first. 5. Pursuant to Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP, an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings applies when a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO. The terms “rapid” and “rapidly” in these provisions must be interpreted in the light of the principles set out above and the relevant circumstances of the case, such as the stage of the opposition proceedings and the stage of the revocation proceedings. The term “may” in Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP means that the Court has a discretionary power to stay the proceedings when a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO. Whether or not a stay is granted depends on the balance of the interests of the parties. 6. The mere fact that the EPO has granted a request to accelerate the opposition proceedings is not sufficient to stay revocation proceedings before the UPC. Rule 298 RoP provides that the Court may stay its proceedings “in accordance with Rule 295(a) RoP” pending accelerated opposition proceedings. Therefore, in that situation the same criterion applies, namely the requirement of Rule 295(a) RoP that the decision in the opposition proceedings may be expected to be given rapidly. Obviously, acceleration is relevant to the assessment, since the pace of the proceedings determines when the decision of the EPO can be expected. Acceleration as such is however not sufficient for establishing the expectation of a rapid decision within the meaning of Rule 295(a) RoP. Stay of revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings, Accelerated opposition proceedings, Appeal
27/05/2024 NEC Corporation v TCL TCT UPC_CFI_498/2023 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English Request to shorten deadlines rejected. Request to extend deadlines granted. request to extend deadlines, wrong appendixes, request to shorten deadlines
22/05/2024 Volkswagen AG v. Network System Technologies UPC_CoA_225/2023 ORD_29903/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
22/05/2024 Volkswagen AG v. Network System Technologies UPC_CoA_225/2023 ORD_29914/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
22/05/2024 Volkswagen AG v. Network System Technologies UPC_CoA_222/2024 ORD_29926/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
22/05/2024 AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies UPC_CoA_225/2023 ORD_29899/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
22/05/2024 AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies UPC_CoA_225/2023 ORD_29918/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
22/05/2024 AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies UPC_CoA_219/2024 ORD_29909/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
22/05/2024 Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v Network Systems Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_223/2024 ORD_29608/2024 Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
22/05/2024 Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v Network Systems Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_225/2023 ORD_29621/2024 Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
22/05/2024 Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v Network Systems Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_224/2024 ORD_29615/2024 Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
21/05/2024 Arm, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, SVF Holdco v ICPillar ORD_23494/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division English    
16/05/2024 Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v. Panasonic Holdings Corporation UPC_CFI_216/2023 ORD_6152/2024 Procedural Order Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
15/05/2024 Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) ORD_23557/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division English    
14/05/2024 Dolby International AB v. Hewlett-Packard, HP UPC_CFI_457/2023 ORD_23441/2024 Amend Document Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German Richtet sich eine Klage zunächst gegen sämtliche, einer bestimmten Gattung zugehörigen Geräte des Beklagten und erklärt der Kläger sodann, dass bestimmte Geräte in einer spezifischen Konfiguration nicht von der Klage erfasst sein sollen, kann es sich dabei um eine nachträgliche bedingungslose Beschränkung des Klageanspruchs im Sinne von R. 263.3 VerfO handeln. Beschränkung des Klageanspruchs, Kosten, bedingungslose Beschränkung, Teilrücknahme
14/05/2024 Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v. Bhagat Textile Engineers ORD_27218/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division Italian    
13/05/2024 SES-imagotag SA v. Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V. UPC_CoA_1/2024 ORD_17447/2024 Appeal RoP220.1 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
10/05/2024 CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. ORD_24708/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat German Anordnung der Simultanverdolmetschung, Art. 109 VerfO  
10/05/2024 Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v. Roche Diabetes Care GmbH UPC_CFI_589997/2023 ORD_7903/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English The violation of a standstill agreement does not constitute grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court. standstill agreement, jurisdiction
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 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    
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_218/2023 ORD_25617/2024 Rule 264 Order Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
02/05/2024 Nokia Technology GmbH v. Mala Technologies Ltd. ORD_13023/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division English   lis pendens, Art 29-31 Brussels I Reg recast
1 2 ... 10