|
11/12/2024 |
Dolby International AB v. Access Advance LLC v. HP |
UPC_CFI_457/2023 |
App_60701/2024 |
ORD_61611/2024 |
- |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
11/12/2024 |
Hand Held Products, Inc. v. Scandit AG |
UPC_CoA_520/2024 |
App_64946/2024 |
ORD_65341/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
11/12/2024 |
Hand Held Products, Inc. v. Scandit AG |
UPC_CFI_664/2024 |
- |
ORD_65439/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
11/12/2024 |
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v. Valeo Electrification |
UPC_CoA_719/2024 |
ORD_65525/2024 |
ORD_65525/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
11/12/2024 |
VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, MERIL GMBH, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, INTERLUX, UAB, SORMEDICA, UAB |
UPC_CFI_380/2023 |
App_14299/2024 |
ORD_65290/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
10/12/2024 |
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB |
UPC_CFI_380/2023 |
ACT_582093/2023 |
ORD_598531/2023 |
Infringement action |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
10/12/2024 |
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College |
UPC_CoA_470/2023 |
APL_593120/2023 |
ORD_598533/2023 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
1. Die Aufhebung gemäß Art. 75(1) EPGÜ und R. 242.1 VerfO einer Anordnung des Gerichts erster Instanz, mit der eine einstweilige Verfügung erlassen worden ist, ist in der Regel rückwirkend. Die Anordnung wird aufgehoben, weil durch eine rechtskräftige Anordnung des Berufungsgerichts festgestellt worden ist, dass die Anordnung nicht hätte erlassen werden dürfen. Eine aufgehobene Anordnung ist daher als von Anfang an ohne rechtliche Wirkung zu betrachten. Daraus folgt, dass die Aufhebung einer Anordnung des Gerichts erster Instanz, mit der eine einstweilige Verfügung unter Androhung von Zwangsgeldern erlassen worden ist, die rechtliche Grundlage für jede nachfolgende Entscheidung, die die Zahlung von Zwangsgeldern anordnet, beseitigt, selbst wenn diese Entscheidung mutmaßliche Verstöße gegen die einstweilige Verfügung vor der Aufhebung betrifft. |
Aufhebung einer Anordnung, Verhängung von Zwangsgeldern, Einstweilige Verfügung, Berufung |
|
|
09/12/2024 |
air up group GmbH V. Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology |
UPC_CFI_508/2023 |
App_64018/2024 |
ORD_64895/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
09/12/2024 |
air up group GmbH V. Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology |
UPC_CFI_508/2023 |
App_64011/2024 |
ORD_64864/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
09/12/2024 |
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation |
UPC_CFI_755/2024 |
ACT_63549/2024 |
ORD_64861/2024 |
Application for provisional measures |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Art. 32 (1) a) and c) establish jurisdiction of the UPC for issuing provisional measures through which an applicant seeks legal protection against impending (foreign) prohibitions on litigation and/or enforcement. A (foreign) ban on conducting and/or enforcing proceedings violates the general European right to access to justice (Art. 47 EU Charter). The prohibitions also contradict the German right to access to justice under Art. 2 (1), 19 (4) of the German Constitution and are to be qualified as a tortious act within the meaning of § 823 (1) of the German Civil Code. Special circumstances within the meaning of Rule 211.5 RoP cannot be justified only by the (allegedly) long duration of the procurement of a security. Rule 213.1 RoP does not give the court any discretion. |
GERMAN Anti Anti Suit Injunction; Zuständigkeit; Anordnun einstweilige Maßnahmen; Sicherheitsleistung gem. Regel 211.5 RoP; Frist gem. Regel 213 RoP. ENGLISH competence; Order provisional measures; security RoP 211.5; time limit RoP 213. |
|
|
09/12/2024 |
air up group GmbH V. Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology |
UPC_CFI_509/2023 |
App_64019/2024 |
ORD_64876/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
03/12/2024 |
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v. Dyson Technology |
UPC_CoA_297/2024 |
APL_32012/2024 |
ORD_62483/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
03/12/2024 |
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Inc, Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V. v. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. |
UPC_CFI_476/2024 |
App_56246/2024 |
ORD_58802/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
03/12/2024 |
10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience |
UPC_CFI_140/2024 |
App_48598/2024 |
ORD_48718/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. Not only the claimant but also the defendant may be ordered to provide security for legal costs within the meaning of R. 158 RoP. 2. If the claimant requests such a security for legal costs to be provided by the defendant, the Court has to take into account that the claimant made a voluntary decision to litigate. This circumstance does have implications for the weighing of interests when exercising the discretion under Rule 158 RoP. In doing so, special care must be taken by the Court that the Defendant’s right to a fair trial is protected and particularly that the Defendant is not denied the opportunity to present its case effectively before the Court. |
Security of costs, Art. 64 UPCA, R. 158 RoP, Order against the defendant |
|
|
02/12/2024 |
Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v. Vibrantz GmbH |
UPC_CFI_114/2024 |
App_55548/2024 |
ORD_61305/2024 |
Application Rop 333 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
- Antrag auf Überprüfung durch den Spruchkörper gem. Regel 333 VerfO (APP_55548/2024) betreffend die Versagung der Zulassung der Klageänderung – Erweiterung um mittelbare Verletzung eines Verfahrensanspruchs - gem. Regel. 263 VerfO (App_33728/2024). - Antrag auf Zulassung der Klageänderung gem. Regel 263 VerfO – Erweiterung der Klage um Ansprüche wegen Rumänien (App_53768/2024) - Antrag auf Zulassung der Klageänderung gem. Regel 263 VerfO – Erweiterung der Widerklage um Rumänien (App_54229/2024) - Antrag, die Widerbeklagte im Nichtigkeitswiderklageverfahren CC_43919/2024 gem. R. 25.1, 42.2, 305.1 (c) VerfO durch die Klägerin zu ersetzen (App_54645/2024) - diverse Anträge der Klägerin (App_48806/2024). |
Fristenregime, Parteiänderung, Rumänien, Klageerweiterung, Überprüfung durch den Spruchkörper, mittelbare Patentverletzung |
|
|
29/11/2024 |
NJOY Netherlands BV v. VMR Products LLC |
UPC_CFI_307/2023 |
ACT_571537/2023 |
ORD_598496/2023 |
Revocation action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
The common general knowledge is information which has been commonly known to the skilled person from written sources or from practical experience in the relevant technical field available at the prior date: it includes knowledge which is directly available from familiar sources of information relating to the specific technical field but does not necessarily include all the publicly available knowledge, which may not be general and common. |
common general knowledge, late filed documents, validity of the patent |
|
|
29/11/2024 |
Aarke AB v. SodaStream Industries Ltd. |
UPC_CoA_548/2024 |
APL_52969/2024 |
ORD_56773/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
29/11/2024 |
Fujifilm v. Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH |
UPC_CFI_355/2023 |
App_61390/2024 |
ORD_62349/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Simultaneous interpretation, R. 109 RoP, dismissed, request |
|
|
29/11/2024 |
Fujifilm v. Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH |
UPC_CFI_355/2023 |
App_63445/2024 |
ORD_63627/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
R. 9.2 RoP, R. 36 RoP, Disregarding of facts |
|
|
28/11/2024 |
*** v. Amycel LLC |
UPC_CoA_490/2024 |
APL_47391/2024 |
ORD_63265/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
28/11/2024 |
Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v. Valeo Electrification |
UPC_CFI_460/2024 |
App_60286/2024 |
ORD_60941/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Protection of confidential information, R. 262A RoP |
|
|
27/11/2024 |
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v. VMR Products LLC |
UPC_CFI_308/2023 |
ACT_571565/2023 |
ORD_598498/2023 |
Revocation Action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
1. The Unified Patent Court legal provisions introduce the so-called ‘front loaded’ procedural system whereby a claimant is required to concretely elaborate his arguments and evidence in its first written pleading. However, these provisions must be interpreted in the light of the principle of proportionality, which requires that the parties should not be burdened with tasks that are unnecessary to achieve the stated objective, and in the light of the principle of procedural efficiency, which is contrary to excessive and overly detailed allegations of facts and production of multiple documents in relation to matters that can be presumed to be known to the opposing party and not to be disputed by them. 2. In revocation actions, the claimant is required to specify in detail the grounds of invalidity that allegedly affect the contested patent, as well as the prior art documents relied upon to support any allegation of lack of novelty or inventive step. Consequently, the claimant cannot introduce new grounds of invalidity of the attacked patent or introduce new documents considered novelty destroying or convincing starting points for the assessment of lack of inventive step in subsequent written acts. 3. In certain situation, following the defence raised by the defendant, the claimant may allege new facts and new evidence, insofar as they are considered capable of supporting the main facts already timely alleged and disputed by the defendant or the probative value of the evidence already filed. 4. While it is in general questionable that a particular published patent application or a patent specification can be considered as an indication of common general knowledge, however the statement of the author of the patent that a teaching is widely spread at the time can used as evidence of the fact that this teaching forms part of common general knowledge. |
validity of the patent., written procedure |
|
|
27/11/2024 |
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v. Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH |
UPC_CoA_651/2024 |
APL_59329/2024 |
ORD_61376/2024 |
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
27/11/2024 |
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v. Himson Engineering Private Limited |
UPC_CFI_240/2023 |
ACT_549550/2023 |
ORD_63173/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
Italian |
|
|
|
|
|
26/11/2024 |
Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad International GmbH, Myriad Genetics B.V., Eurobio Scientific, Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S. |
UPC_CFI_437/2024 |
App_59539/2024 |
ORD_59602/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
DE
EN
IT