Moteur de recherchedans les décisionsde 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 1^er 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

Recherche globale

Recherche par champs

Date


et

Parties

Numéro de l'affaire

Numéro de registre

Numéro de la décision ou de l'ordonnance

Type d'action

Juridiction - Division

Langue de procédure

Sommaire

Mots clés

Langue du document

Nouvelle recherche

735 résultats trouvés

Date	Parties	Numéro de l'affaire	Numéro de registre	Numéro de la décision ou de l'ordonnance	Type d'action	Juridiction - Division	Langue de procédure	Sommaire	Mots clés	Documents
15/11/2024	Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.	UPC_CFI_15/2023	App_56354/2024	ORD_56918/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English			EN
15/11/2024	Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.	UPC_CFI_15/2023	App_60393/2024	ORD_60761/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English			EN
15/11/2024	Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.	UPC_CFI_15/2023	App_57746/2024	ORD_60760/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English			EN
15/11/2024	Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Shenzen Yunding Information Technology	UPC_CFI_515/2024	App_60676/2024	ORD_61204/2024	Application Rop 370	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	Regel 370 Abs. 9 (b) (i) VerfO ist im Falle der Rücknahme eines Antrags auf Erlass einstweiliger Maßnahmen vor Abschluss des schriftlichen Verfahrens analog anwendbar.	Rückerstattung von Gerichtsgebühren, Rücknahme Antrag auf Erlass einstweiliger Maßnahmen	DE EN
14/11/2024	Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v. Vibrantz GmbH	UPC_CFI_114/2024	App_43938/2024	ORD_44025/2024	Application RoP262A	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	Handling of confidentiality requests in respect to trade secrets that had unnecessarily been introduced into the proceedings.		DE EN
14/11/2024	Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v. Valeo Electrification	UPC_CoA_691/2024	App_61002/2024	ORD_61229/2024	Application Rop 223	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English			EN
13/11/2024	HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v. LAMA FRANCE	UPC_CFI_358/2023	ACT_578697/2023	ORD_598511/2023	Infringement Action	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division	French			FR EN
12/11/2024	AIM Sport Development AG v. Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL	UPC_CoA_500/2023	APL_596892/2023	ORD_598489/2023	Appeal RoP220.1	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English			EN
12/11/2024	Headwater Research LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. v. Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S	UPC_CFI_54/2024	App_40276/2024	ORD_49223/2024	Procedural Order	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	An order for the production of a document against a third party is successful because the third party does not raise an objection.	R 190 RoP., no objections raised, third party, Production of documents	EN
12/11/2024	AIM Sport Development AG v. Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL	UPC_CoA_489/2023	APL_596007/2023	ORD_598488/2023	Appeal RoP220.1	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English			EN
05/11/2024	NJOY Netherlands B.V. v. Juul Labs, Inc.	UPC_CFI_315/2023	ACT_571801/2023	ORD_598483/2023	Revocation Action	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English			EN
05/11/2024	NJOY Netherlands B.V. v. Juul Labs, Inc.	UPC_CFI_309/2022	ACT_571669/2023	ORD_598482/2023	Revocation Action	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English			EN
05/11/2024	Cardo Systems, Ltd. v. Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. And other	UPC_CFI_643/2024	ACT_59213/2024	ORD_59913/2024	Application for provisional measures	Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division	English			EN
05/11/2024	Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v. TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD KINGTYRE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH	UPC_CFI_650/2024	ACT_59322/2024	ORD_59764/2024	Application for provisional measures	Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division	Italian			IT EN
05/11/2024	Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v. SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD.China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub-council	UPC_CFI_649/2024	ACT_59315/2024	ORD_59449/2024	Application for provisional measures	Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division	Italian			IT EN
04/11/2024	Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v. Bhagat Textile Engineers	UPC_CFI_241/2023	ACT_549585/2023	ORD_598484/2023	Infringement Action	Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division	Italian			IT EN
04/11/2024	Mathys & Squire ./. Astellas, Healios, Riken, Osaka Universitiy	UPC_CFI_75/2023	App_54214/2024	ORD_55220/2024	Application Rop262 3	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section	English	Rule 262.3 RoP. Application requesting that information excluded from public access pursuant to Rule 262.2 RoP may be made available to the applicant granted in the absence of legitimate reasons to withhold access.	262.3 RoP, burden of proof, making available information excluded from public access	EN
01/11/2024	Scandit AG v. Hand Held Products, Inc.	UPC_CoA_520/2024	App_57474/2024	ORD_58165/2024	Generic application	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	German			DE EN
31/10/2024	Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL v. Valeo Electrification	UPC_CFI_347/2024	ACT_37931/2024	ORD_56545/2024	Application for provisional measures	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English	1. In case of European Patents, the material proprietor is deemed to be the patent proprietor for the purposes of proceedings before the UPC. However, if the patent proprietor is registered in the European Patent Register or in the national register(s), it may initially rely on a rebuttable presumption (R. 8.5 (c) RoP). This rebuttable presumption attached to the regis-tered patent is a strong presumption which can only be rebutted in PI proceedings if the title is manifestly erroneous. 2. If the defendant claims that the applicant is not acting in good faith because the applicant has unlawfully appropriated the patent in suit to its detriment, this cannot be taken into account in favour of the defendant in the weighing of interests if the defendant has failed to bring a vindication action in due time before the national courts. 3. In answering the question of whether the patent in suit is more likely to be invalid than not, no conclusions can be drawn from the general revocation rates of patents. Only relevant is the patent in suit. 4. Whether a delay is unreasonable within the meaning of R. 211.4 RoP depends on the circumstances of the individual case. There is no fixed deadline by which the applicant must submit its application for provisional measures. The question is always whether the applicant’s conduct as a whole justifies the conclusion that the enforcement of its rights is not urgent.	preliminary injunction, Application for provisional measures, exceptional damage, entitlement, good faith, rebuttable presumption, weighing of interests, urgency	EN
31/10/2024	Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL v. Valeo Electrification	UPC_CFI_368/2024	ACT_39183/2024	ORD_56534/2024	Application for provisional measures	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English	1. In case of European Patents, the material proprietor is deemed to be the patent proprietor for the purposes of proceedings before the UPC. However, if the patent proprietor is registered in the European Patent Register or in the national register(s), it may initially rely on a rebuttable presumption (R. 8.5 (c) RoP). This rebuttable presumption attached to the registered patent is a strong presumption which can only be rebutted in PI proceedings if the title is manifestly erroneous. 2. If the defendant claims that the applicant is not acting in good faith because the applicant has unlawfully appropriated the patent in suit to its detriment, this cannot be taken into account in favour of the defendant in the weighing of interests if the defendant has failed to bring a vindication action in due time before the national courts. 3. In answering the question of whether the patent in suit is more likely to be invalid than not, no conclusions can be drawn from the general revocation rates of patents. Only relevant is the patent in suit. 4. Whether a delay is unreasonable within the meaning of R. 211.4 RoP depends on the circumstances of the individual case. There is no fixed deadline by which the applicant must submit its application for provisional measures. The question is always whether the applicant’s conduct as a whole justifies the conclusion that the enforcement of its rights is not urgent.	urgency, rebuttable presumption, weighing of interests, Application for provisional measures, preliminary injunction, good faith, exceptional damage, entitlement	EN
31/10/2024	SodaStream Industries Ltd. v. Aarke AB	UPC_CFI_373/2023	ACT_580849/2023	ORD_598499/2023	Infringement Action	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English	1. The claim must not be limited to the scope of preferred embodiments. The scope of a claim extends to subject-matter that the skilled person understands as the patentee's claim after interpretation using the description and drawings. A claim interpretation which is supported by the description and drawings as a whole is generally not limited by a drawing showing only a specific shape of a component. 2. Pursuant to Art. 69(1) S. 1 EPC, the extent of the protection conferred by a European Patent shall be determined by the claims. It is therefore the claim that defines the outer limit of the scope of protection. Nevertheless, the description and the drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. Prior art is not mentioned there. The limitation to the description and the drawings as interpretation material serves the purpose of legal certainty, since the scope of protection can be conclusively determined from the patent itself. This does not mean that prior art is irrelevant to the definition of the scope of the patent and thus to claim construction. If this prior art is discussed in the description of the patent in suit, the relevant consid-erations must be taken into account. If the patent distinguishes itself from the prior art in a particular way, an interpretation that negates that distinction must be avoided. 3. The right of publication includes a further element of punishment. Publication should therefore only be granted if the protection of the Claimant is not provided effectively and sufficiently ensured by other measures ordered.	Gillette-Defense, order of publication of decisions, Interpretation of claim, preferred embodiments	EN
30/10/2024	FUJIFILM Corporation v. 1. Kodak GmbH , 2. Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, 3. Kodak Holding GmbH	UPC_CFI_355/2023	App_54506/2024	ORD_54796/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English	1. The fact that the claimant has only one opportunity to submit written observations on the right of prior use is a consequence of the Rules of procedure and the time limits laid down therein. However, in order to give the claimant the opportunity to present further argu-ments if necessary, R. 36 RoP provides for the possibility of requesting permission to file additional pleadings. 2. In assessing the prospects of success of such a request, the Court must, on the one hand, have regard to the reasons put forward by the applicant as to why, in its view, further pleadings are necessary. However, the Court must also have regard to the effect of further pleadings on the further course of the proceedings and the risk of delay associated therewith.	R. 36 RoP, prior use right, further exchanges of written pleadings	EN
30/10/2024	Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v. Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH	UPC_CFI_16/2024	App_59050/2024	ORD_59195/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	German	R. 36 VerfO, Zurückweisung, Zulassung weitere Schriftsätze		DE EN
29/10/2024	Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.,	UPC_CoA_549/2024	App_53031/2024	ORD_53377/2024	Application Rop 223	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	German			DE EN
29/10/2024	TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Sioen NV	UPC_CFI_9/2024	App_10381/2024	ORD_16070/2024	Preliminary objection	Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division	English			EN

1 ... 17 18 19 ... 30