|
20/01/2025 |
N.J Diffusion Sarl v. GISELA MAYER GmbH |
UPC_CFI_363/2024 |
App_67911/2024 |
ORD_68816/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
French |
|
|
|
|
|
20/01/2025 |
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited |
UPC_CFI_430/2023 |
App_68471/2024 |
ORD_68796/2024 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
20/01/2025 |
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited |
UPC_CFI_430/2023 |
App_68369/2024 |
ORD_68797/2024 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
20/01/2025 |
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited |
UPC_CFI_430/2023 |
App_68693/2024 |
ORD_68783/2024 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
20/01/2025 |
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v. Dyson Technology |
UPC_CoA_297/2024 |
App_283/2025 |
ORD_3097/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
Die Frist von einem Monat für einen Antrag auf Kostenfestsetzung gemäß R. 151.1 VerfO beginnt mit der Zustellung der Sachentscheidung, nicht mit der Zustellung einer Anordnung über einstweilige Maßnahmen. Wenn der Antragsteller kein Verfahren in der Sache gemäß R. 213 VerfO einleitet, z. B. wenn der Antrag auf einstweilige Maßnahmen erfolglos war, gelten R. 150 und 151 VerfO entsprechend. |
Antrag auf Kostenfestsetzung (R. 150.1 VerfO, R. 151.1 VerfO) |
|
|
17/01/2025 |
Jef Nelissen v. Orthoapnea S.L., Vivisol B Bv |
UPC_CFI_376/2023 |
ACT_581538/2023 |
ORD_598478/2023 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division |
Dutch |
|
|
|
|
|
17/01/2025 |
Njoy Netherlands B.V. v. Juul Labs, Inc. |
UPC CFI 316 /2023 |
ACT_571808/2023 |
ORD_598564/2023 |
Revocation Action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
17/01/2025 |
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland Gmbh, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi S.R.L., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Ab, Sanofi Mature Ip, Sanofi-Aventis Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_145/2024 UPC_CFI_146/2024 UPC_CFI_147/2024 UPC_CFI_148/2024 |
App_907/2025 |
ORD_2029/2025 |
Application Rop305 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
17/01/2025 |
Nec Corporation |
UPC_CFI_487/2023 |
App_2272/2025 |
ORD_2317/2025 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
16/01/2025 |
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v. STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH, Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_33/2024 |
ORD_2646/2025 |
ORD_2647/2025 |
Decision By Default |
Court of First Instance - Vienna (AT) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
16/01/2025 |
Fives Ecl, Sas v. Reel Gmbh |
UPC_CoA_30/2024 |
APL_4000/2024 |
- |
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
GERMAN - Die Zuständigkeit des Gerichts (oder Jurisdiktion) besteht auch für eine selbständige Klage auf Festsetzung von Schadenersatz, nachdem ein Gericht eines Vertragsmitgliedstaates die Verletzung eines europäischen Patents und eine Verpflichtung des Verletzers dem Grunde nach zur Zahlung von Schadenersatz festgestellt hat. - Die Zuständigkeit des Gerichts erfasst auch Verletzungshandlungen, die vor dem Inkrafttreten des EPGÜ am 1. Juni 2023 begangen wurden, solange das geltend gemachte europäische Patent zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch nicht erloschen ist. ENGLISH - The Court’s competence (or jurisdiction) includes a separate action for determination of damages after a court of a Contracting Member State has established the existence of an infringement of a European patent and an obligation in principle for the infringer to pay damages. - The Court has jurisdiction to decide on acts of infringement committed before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023, as long as the European patent invoked has not yet lapsed at that date. |
GERMAN Einspruch, Zuständigkeit, Schadenersatz ENGLISH Preliminary objection, jurisdiction, damages |
|
|
16/01/2025 |
Nvidia Corporation, Nvidia Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_627/2024 |
App_64878/2024 |
ORD_65820/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. When deciding on an application to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent was granted for reasons of fairness, all relevant circumstances must be taken into account including the fact that parties are domiciled in countries where the language of the proceedings chosen by the claimant is an official language. 2. Ensuring a fair access to justice for medium-sized enterprises is an important objective of the UPCA. |
Change of the language of the proceedings |
|
|
16/01/2025 |
Tesla Germany Gmbh, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg Se |
UPC_CFI_54/2023 |
App_66712/2024 |
ORD_68807/2024 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. Für die Rücknahme eines noch in erster Instanz anhängigen Antrags auf Festsetzung der zu erstattenden Kosten ist das Gericht erster Instanz zuständig, auch wenn sich das Hauptsacheverfahren (Klage und Widerklage) bereits in der Berufungsinstanz befindet. 2. Da es sich nicht um eine Maßnahme der Verfahrensleitung nach Regeln 331 ff VerfO handelt, sondern um eine Sachentscheidung in originärer Kompetenz des Berichterstatters nach Regel 156.2 VerfO, ist der Berichterstatter auch für die Zulassung der Rücknahme originär und allein zuständig. |
Rücknahme des Kostenfestsetzungsantrags, Regel 156 VerfO, Regel 265 VerfO. |
|
|
16/01/2025 |
Daedalus Prime Llc v. Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Intel Corporation, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_169/2024 436/2024 |
App_64836/2024 |
ORD_65257/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
16/01/2025 |
Bhagat Textile Engineers v. Oerlikon Textile Gmbh & Co Kg |
UPC_CoA_12/2025 |
App_1182/2025 |
ORD_2674/2025 |
Application Rop 223 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
Italian |
|
Il requisito delle circostanze eccezionali che giustificano una richiesta di effetto sospensivo ai sensi del R 223 RdP deve essere dimostrato dal richiedente. Nel caso di specie, il richiedente non ha dimostrato l'esistenza di tali circostanze eccezionali. |
Effetto sospensivo del ricorso, R 223 RdP |
|
|
15/01/2025 |
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited |
UPC_CoA_629/2024 UPC_CoA_631/2024 UPC_CoA_632/2024 |
App_66724/2024 |
ORD_67032/2024 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
15/01/2025 |
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited |
UPC_CoA_629/2024 UPC_CoA_631/2024 UPC_CoA_632/2024 |
App_68614/2024 |
ORD_68790/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
15/01/2025 |
Dainese v. Alpinestars S.P.A. Alpinestars S.p.A. Alpinestars Research S.p.A. Omnia Retail S.r.l. Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K. Motocard Bike S.l. |
UPC_CFI_472/2024 |
App_1176/2025 |
ORD_1495/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
English |
|
1. The coordination between the appeals proceedings before the EPO and the proceedings be-fore UPC may be achieved in the most efficient way, taking into account the position of all parties, for instance by extending the time limits for filing the statement of defence and the counterclaim for revocation, allowing for a more overall procedural efficiency, on one hand not staying the proceedings – in the power of the Court- and on the other hand wait-ing for the upcoming EPO’s decision. 2. On a reasoned request, the other parties may be granted a deadline within which to submit their observations on the EPO's decision, in accordance with the procedural faculty provid-ed for in Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure. It follows that the solution adopted does not violate the adversarial principle and complies with the equality of the parties in the right of defence. The principle of efficiency is therefore guaranteed, at the same time guaranteeing the right to a full adversarial principle, which takes the form of knowledge and examination of the decisions of the EPO. |
RoP 150, RoP 151, RoP156, RoP 313, RoP 314, Art. 69 UPCA |
|
|
14/01/2025 |
Accord Healthcare Gmbh, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare Bv, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare Ab, Accord Healthcare S.L.U. v. Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis Gmbh, Sanofi Mature Ip, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi S.R.L., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland Gmbh, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Ab, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium |
UPC_CFI_145/2024 UPC_CFI_146/2024 UPC_CFI_147/2024 UPC_CFI_148/2024 |
App_55583/2024 |
ORD_59844/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Order on an application for the protection of confidential information. |
Rule 262 RoP, personal data, Rule 262A RoP, confidential information |
|
|
14/01/2025 |
Total Semiconductor, Llc v. Texas Instruments Deutschland Gmbh, Texas Instruments Emea Sales Gmbh |
UPC_CoA_651/2024 |
APL_59329/2024 |
ORD_68780/2024 |
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
14/01/2025 |
Bentley Motors Limited v. Network Systems Technologies LLC |
UPC_CFI_167/2024 |
App_67325/2024 |
ORD_67919/2024 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
1. Since Rule 265 (1) of the Rules of procedure (‘RoP’) does not require the express consent of the opposing party, it is sufficient that the party was given an opportunity to comment on the withdrawal and did not object within the time limit set by the Court. |
withdrawal |
|
|
13/01/2025 |
President and Fellows of Harvard College v. NanoString Technologies Europe Limited |
UPC_CFI_298/2023 |
App_58910/2024 |
ORD_60352/2024 |
Application Rop 333 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
13/01/2025 |
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH |
UPC_CFI_791/2024 |
App_1210/2025 |
ORD_1826/2025 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Dem Antrag auf Zulassung der Rücknahme wird stattgegeben. 2. Das Verfahren betreffend den Antrag auf Erlass einstweiliger Maßnahmen (ACT_65376/2024 UPC_CFI_791/2024) wird für beendet erklärt. 3. Diese Entscheidung ist in das Register aufzunehmen. 4. Jeder Partei trägt ihre Kosten selbst. Zwischen den Parteien findet keine hier zu regelnde Kostenerstattung statt. 5. Der Streitwert wird auf 3 Mio. EUR festgesetzt. 6. Der als Sicherheitsleistung hinterlegte Betrag in Höhe von EUR 3.000.000 ist auf das Kanzleikonto der anwaltlichen Vertreter der Antragstellerin unverzüglich zurückzuzahlen. |
Rückzahlung Sicherheitsleistung, Regel 265 VerfO |
|
|
13/01/2025 |
Valeo Electrification |
UPC_CoA_689/2024 |
App_68553/2024 |
ORD_68769/2024 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
13/01/2025 |
Valeo Electrification |
UPC_CoA_690/2024 |
App_68579/2024 |
ORD_68770/2024 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
FR
EN
DE
NL
IT