|
25/08/2025 |
Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated v. Network System Technologies LLC |
UPC_CFI_64/2024 |
App_22894/2024 |
ORD_69427/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Regel 19.1 (a) VerfO bedeutet nicht, dass der Beklagte einer Verletzungsklage im Zusammenhang mit einem Antrag auf Opt-out und dem Rücktritt von der Inanspruchnahme der Ausnahmeregelung Einwände erheben kann, um zu argumentieren, dass der Rücktritt ungültig und ein zuvor erklärtes Opt-out gültig ist. Der Rücktritt von der Inanspruchnahme der Ausnahmeregelung ist zumindest wirksam, wenn die Voraussetzungen der Regeln 5.3 und 5.7 VerfO (bei mehr als einem Antragsteller oder Patentinhaber auch Regel 5.1 VerfO) erfüllt sind, der Rücktritt in das Register eingetragen wird und die Voraussetzungen der Regel 5.8 VerfO nicht erfüllt sind. Ist dies der Fall, ist die sich daraus ergebende Wirksamkeit des Rücktritts von der Inanspruchnahme der Ausnahmeregelung für das Gericht und die Parteien verbindlich. Insbesondere wenn ein EPG-Vertreter gemäß Regel 5.3 (b) (i) VerfO handelt, ist eine schriftliche Vollmacht, eine Bevollmächtigung oder eine andere Befugnis oder Vertretung keine notwendige Voraussetzung für die Wirksamkeit des Rücktritts von der Inanspruchnahme der Ausnahmeregelung, und das Fehlen einer solchen Vertretungsbefugnis kann nicht mit einem Einspruch geltend gemacht werden. |
- |
|
|
25/08/2025 |
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v. Sun Patent Trust |
UPC_CoA_759/2025 |
App_34972/2025 |
ORD_35142/2025 |
Application Rop 223 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
25/08/2025 |
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v. Sun Patent Trust |
UPC_CoA_758/2025 |
App_34971/2025 |
ORD_35139/2025 |
Application Rop 223 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
22/08/2025 |
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v. CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH |
UPC_CFI_459/2023 |
App_35225/2025 |
ORD_35254/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
22/08/2025 |
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v. Inventronics GmbH |
UPC_CFI_459/2023 |
App_35225/2025 |
- |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
22/08/2025 |
Brita SE v. AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée |
UPC_CFI_248/2024 |
ACT_29522/2024 |
ORD_69429/2024 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2025 |
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. |
UPC_CoA_317/2025_UPC_CoA_376/2025 |
App_35194/2025 |
ORD_35339/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2025 |
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v. Inventronics GmbH |
UPC_CFI_580/2025 |
ACT_30657/2025 |
ORD_35179/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2025 |
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc. |
UPC_CFI_248/2025 |
App_34962/2025 |
ORD_35006/2025 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2025 |
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v. Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel |
UPC_CFI_115/2024_UPC_CFI_377/2024 |
ACT_13359/2024 |
ORD_69456/2024 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2025 |
HMD Global Oy v. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. |
UPC_CFI_494/2025 |
App_34702/2025 |
ORD_34789/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
- |
1. The time limit for responding to the statement of defense under Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure is already set at a level that allows for the clarification of the facts and internal coordination—even across vacation periods—in international patent disputes falling within the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court. 2. If, in SEP proceedings, a license offer has been made by the claimant or the license pool in which it participates for several years, and a counteroffer has been made by the defendant, the fact that not only bilateral negotiations but also pool negotiations play a role in antitrust defense does not justify an extension of the time limit for responding to the complaint. |
|
|
21/08/2025 |
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. v. HL Display AB |
UPC_CFI_386/2024_UPC_CFI_610/2024 |
App_9257/2025 |
ORD_35239/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2025 |
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. v. HL Display AB |
UPC_CFI_386/2024_UPC_CFI_610/2024 |
App_26908/2025 |
ORD_28264/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2025 |
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc. |
UPC_CFI_248/2025 |
App_34962/2025 |
ORD_35334/2025 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2025 |
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH |
UPC_CoA_764/2024_UPC_CoA_774/2024 |
App_34793/2025 |
ORD_35350/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2025 |
LIFE 365 S.R.L., LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. v. LAMA France, HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P. |
UPC_CoA_23/2025 |
App_33358/2025 |
ORD_35277/2025 |
Application Rop313 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
French |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2025 |
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v. Fujifilm Corporation |
UPC_CoA_312/2025_UPC_CoA_333/2025 |
App_35051/2025 |
ORD_35325/2025 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2025 |
Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy |
UPC_CoA_363/2025 |
ORD_35283/2025 |
ORD_35283/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2025 |
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v. BALLINNO B.V. |
UPC_CFI_230/2024 |
App_34189/2025 |
ORD_35247/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
20/08/2025 |
expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH v. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. |
UPC_CoA_380/2025 |
APL_20125/2025 |
ORD_22147/2025 |
Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
20/08/2025 |
Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medcial Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd. v. Occlutech GmbH |
UPC_CFI_630/2025 |
ORD_34687/2025 |
ORD_34687/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
20/08/2025 |
Centripetal Limited v. Keysight Technologies |
UPC_CFI_414/2024 |
App_34743/2025 |
ORD_35171/2025 |
Application Rop 333 |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
19/08/2025 |
Adeia Guides Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., The Walt Disney Company Limited |
UPC_CFI_666/2024_UPC_CFI_ 199/2025 |
App_34490/2025 |
ORD_34921/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
19/08/2025 |
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV (Applicants) v. *** |
UPC_CFI_131/2025 |
ORD_35065/2025 |
ORD_35065/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division |
Dutch |
|
1. A request for correction (pursuant to Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure) serves to correct material errors and/or obvious clerical errors or calculation errors. A calculation error is an error in an arithmetic operation._x000D_
2. The Court cannot, in the context of a Rule 353 RoP procedure, reconsider the grounds for its decision. Given that the Court's jurisdiction is exhausted with regard to the subject matter of the correction order (the earlier order or decision), it cannot have any extending or limiting effect on the earlier order or decision that is the subject matter of the correction order. Any alleged errors of law, logic or any other intellectual errors in the order or decision to be corrected are not the subject of a correction order. In this sense, a correction order (or a request for one) does not affect the time limits for appeal (relating to alleged errors of law, logic or any other intellectual errors) which commence from the date of the order or decision that is the subject of the correction order. |
Rectification, Terms for Appeal, R. 353 RoP |
|
|
19/08/2025 |
ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., Ninepoint GmbH |
UPC_CFI_452/2025 |
App_34857/2025 |
ORD_34904/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|