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


213 résultats trouvés




Date
Parties
Numéro de l'affaire
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 la décision ou de l'ordonnance Type d'action Juridiction - Division Langue de procédure Details Sommaire Mots clés Documents
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    
Allemand flag DE
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    
Anglais flag EN
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
Allemand flag DE
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    
Italien flag IT
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    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
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  
Allemand flag DE
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
Anglais flag EN
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    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
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    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
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    
Français flag FR
Anglais flag EN
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    
Italien flag IT
Anglais flag EN
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    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
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
Anglais flag EN
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    
Anglais flag EN
01/05/2024 Keestrack N.V. v. Geha Laverman B.V. UPC_CFI_379/2023 ACT_ 581723/2023 Generic application Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division Dutch Beslissing tot beëindiging van de inbreukprocedure na intrekkingsverzoek van eiser. Restitutie bevel. R.265.2 en R. 370.9 en 11 RoP R.265 en R.370.9 en 11 RoP
Néerlandais flag NL
Anglais flag EN
30/04/2024 Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc. UPC_CFI_463/2023 ORD_23580/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German 1. If in the case of a European patent a person is registered as the patent proprietor in the respective national register, there is a rebuttable presumption that the person recorded in the respective national register is entitled to be registered (R. 8.5(c) RoP). The result of such a legal presumption is to reverse the burden of explanation and proof with regard to the presumed fact. If the Applicant can refer to his listing in the registers relevant to the respective dispute, it is up to the Defendant's side to set out and, if necessary, prove that the Applicant is not entitled to be registered. 2. If a patent claim contains stated purposes, these usually serve to improve understanding of the invention. As a rule, they have the indirect effect of defining the subject matter protected by the patent in such a way that it must not only fulfil the spatial-physical features, but must also be designed to be usable for the purpose stated in the patent claim. 3. If the Applicant lacks positive knowledge of an infringement of property rights, grossly negligent ignorance or wilful blindness to an infringement of intellectual property rights is considered equivalent to such knowledge. The patent proprietor is not under a general obligation to observe the market. However, as soon as the holder of a property right becomes aware of specific circumstances that suggest an infringement of his property right, he is expected to take all measures readily available to him and to further clarify the circumstances. It is up to the Defendant to explain such circumstances triggering a duty to provide information. 4. While Art. 69(4) EPC only provides for the provision of security for costs by the claimant, R. 158 RoP extends the group of addressees of such an Order to include "the Parties" and thus also the Defendant in the main action. In urgent proceedings, there is neither scope nor (with regard to R. 211.1(d) RoP) a need for the (analogous) application of the provision, given the urgent nature of such proceedings. stated purpose, security for costs, urgency, knowledge of infringement, Right to bring an action, negligent ignorance, weigh-up of interests, presumption, register
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
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    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
30/04/2024 Carrier Corporation v. BITZER Electronics A/S UPC_CFI_263/2023 ORD_24607/2024 Application to review a case management Order (RoP333) into a Revocation Action Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English The request to amend a patent must refer to claims that have been challenged and, therefore, it is inadmissible to the extent that it concerns unchallenged claims. Request to amend the patent; unchallenged claims
Anglais flag EN
30/04/2024 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Italy srl UPC_CFI_255/2023 ORD_24620/2024 Generic Procedural Application into a Revocation Action Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English The Court has the discretionary powers to admit an amend of the patent even after a previous application to amend that patent has been submitted and after the closing of the written procedure; however, the admission of this subsequent request must not prejudice the other party’s right to defence. subsequent request to amend the patent; permission of the Court; closing of the written procedure; additional defence
Anglais flag EN
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    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
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    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
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
Anglais flag EN
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    
Anglais flag EN
23/04/2024 Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc. ORD_22211/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German 1. As Germany has issued an indication within the meaning of Rule 14.2 (c) RoP, the judge-rapporteur may, in the interest of the panel, issue an order to the effect that the judges may, inter alia, issue and deliver any decision and order in German together with a certified translation into English within the meaning of Rule 118.8 RoP. 2. If the language of the proceedings is changed to English after the oral hearing and immediately before the final order is issued, the judge-rapporteur may make use of this possibility in order to ensure that the Application for provisional measures can be decided immediately. Application for provisional measures, language change, language of the proceedings, indication; Rule 14.2 (c) RoP, certified translation
Allemand flag DE
22/04/2024 Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH ORD_5343/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German 1. Hat eine Nichtigkeitswiderklage Erfolg, wird das Streitpatent rückwirkend für nichtig erklärt. Dadurch verliert auch ein einfacher Lizenznehmer seine Vorzugsstellung gegenüber Nicht-Lizenznehmern. Er kann daher dem Rechtsstreit auf Klägerseite beitreten und versuchen, eine solche Nichtigerklärung zu verhindern. 2. Hat sich eine Lokalkammer dazu entschieden, sowohl über die Verletzungsklage als auch über die Nichtigkeitswiderklage zu verhandeln, entscheidet sie auf der Grundlage einer einheitlichen Auslegung sowohl über die Verletzungsfrage als auch über den Rechtsbestand. In einer solchen Konstellation kann der Lizenznehmer nicht nur isoliert der Nichtigkeitswiderklage, sondern dem gesamten Rechtsstreit beitreten. Zulässigkeit der Streithilfe, rechtliches Interesse, einfache Lizenz, einfacher Lizenznehmer, Verletzungsklage, isolierter Beitritt, Streithilfe, Lizenznehmer, Nichtigkeitswiderklage
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
1 2 ... 9