|
09/10/2024 |
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v. Dyson Technology |
UPC_CoA_297/2024 |
App_52471/2024 |
ORD_53013/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
09/10/2024 |
Eoflow v. Insulet |
UPC_CoA_584/2024 |
|
ORD_55415/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
09/10/2024 |
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation |
UPC_CoA_586/2024 |
APL_54732/2024 |
|
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
07/10/2024 |
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited |
UPC_CFI_430/2023 |
|
ORD_55063/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
02/10/2024 |
Samsung v Headwater |
UPC_CFI_54/2024 |
App_40280/2024 |
ORD_45269/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
An application for security for costs is partially successful. |
R 158 RoP, security for costs |
|
|
02/10/2024 |
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril GmbH v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation |
UPC_CoA_2/2024 |
APL_83/2024 |
ORD_42972/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
1. Welche Partei die obsiegende Partei im Sinne von Art. 69(1) EPGÜ im Rahmen der Abweisung einer Klage nach Abgabe einer Unterlassungs- und Verpflichtungserklärung durch den Beklagten ist, ist anhand der Besonderheiten des Verfahrens und insbesondere der Anträge der Parteien und des Inhalts der Erklärung zu bestimmen. Verpflichtet sich der Beklagte nach Einleitung des Verfahrens, den Anträgen des Klägers nachzukommen, ist es im Allgemeinen nicht erforderlich, die Zulässigkeit und die Begründetheit des Falles zum Zeitpunkt der Abgabe der Verpflichtungserklärung zu prüfen, um festzustellen, welche Partei die obsiegende Partei ist. Die Erklärung selbst impliziert, dass die Anträge des Klägers erfüllt wurden. Dies bedeutet, dass in der Regel der Kläger als obsiegende Partei anzusehen ist. |
Kosten des Rechtsstreits, Berufung, Abweisung einer Klage nach Abgabe einer Unterlassungs- und Verpflichtungserklärung |
|
|
02/10/2024 |
NEC Corporation v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.,, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG |
UPC_CFI_153/2024 |
|
ORD_46842/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
In principle, a patent pool administrator has a legal interest in the outcome of proceedings within the meaning of Rule 313 RoP. Admission of the intervention is not precluded by the fact that it does not prevent an violation of Article 101 TFEU, since the applicant and a party have the possibility to exchange sensitive information under competition law in their written submissions. Allowing an intervention as such does not constitute a violation of Art. 101 TFEU. By admitting the intervention, the applicant becomes a party to the proceedings and is to be treated as a party in accordance with Rule 315(4) RoP. Since it must accept the proceedings at this stage, it must be allowed access to the file in order to be able to conduct the proceedings properly. If the court has already classified certain information as confidential and granted only limited access to the party on whose side the intervener is joining pursuant to Rule 262a RoP, the intervener cannot be granted unlimited access to this information. |
admissibility of the intervention, legal interest of a patent pool administrator, antitrust violation, restricted access to confidential information, license negotiations, Intervention |
|
|
02/10/2024 |
NEC Corporation v. TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, , TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH |
UPC_CFI_153/2024 |
|
ORD_46985/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
In principle, a patent pool administrator has a legal interest in the outcome of proceedings within the meaning of Rule 313 RoP. Admission of the intervention is not precluded by the fact that it does not prevent a violation of Article 101 TFEU, since the applicant and a party have the possibility to exchange sensitive information under competition law in their written submissions. Allowing an intervention as such does not constitute a violation of Art. 101 TFEU. By admitting the intervention, the applicant becomes a party to the proceedings and is to be treated as a party in accordance with Rule 315(4) RoP. Since it must accept the proceedings at this stage, it must be allowed access to the file in order to be able to conduct the proceedings properly. If the court has already classified certain information as confidential and granted only limited access to the party on whose side the intervener is joining pursuant to Rule 262a RoP, the intervener cannot be granted unlimited access to this information. |
intervention, restricted access to confidential information, license negotiations, admissibility of the intervention, legal interest of a patent pool administrator, antitrust violation |
|
|
01/10/2024 |
Menarini v. Eoflow, Insulet |
UPC_CFI_380/2024 |
|
ORD_52068/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
RoP 313 application to intervene - requirements -preliminary injunction |
application to intervene - intervention - intervene |
|
|
30/09/2024 |
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L v. Panasonic |
UPC_CoA_543/2024 |
APL_52763/2024 |
ORD_53866/2024 |
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
27/09/2024 |
Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy |
UPC_CFI_164/2024 |
App_42517/2024 |
ORD_45914/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
The Court may order a security for legal costs when the financial position of the respondent gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable and/or the likelihood that a possible order for costs by the Unified Patent Court may not, or in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable. |
burden of proof, security, costs |
|
|
27/09/2024 |
AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies LLC |
UPC_CoA_217/2024 |
App_53212/2024 |
ORD_53777/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
26/09/2024 |
Dolby International AB v. Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_226/2024 |
|
ORD_53245/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
26/09/2024 |
Panasonic v. Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L |
UPC_CFI_220/2023 |
App_31889/2024 |
ORD_39681/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Der Berichterstatter legt einen Antrag auf Aussetzung nach Regel 295 VerfO dem Spruchkörper zur Entscheidung vor. |
Vorlage an den Spruchkörper, R 102.1 VerfO, Aussetzungsantrag, R 295 VerfO, Berichterstatter |
|
|
25/09/2024 |
Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH v. Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH |
UPC_CoA_182/2024 |
APL_21143/2024 |
ORD_44387/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
25/09/2024 |
Heraeus Electronics v. Vibrantz |
UPC_CFI_114/2024 |
App_33728/2024 |
ORD_36668/2024 |
Amend Document |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Der Antrag auf Klageänderung ist nur zum Teil erfolgreich. |
R 263 VerfO, Klageänderung |
|
|
25/09/2024 |
DATA DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. DOYTEC AUTOMATION LTD. |
UPC_CFI_554/2024 |
ACT_53296/2024 |
ORD_53411/2024 |
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
25/09/2024 |
Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v. Vibrantz GmbH |
UPC_CFI_114/2024 |
App_48805/2024 |
ORD_53396/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Die Nichtigkeitswiderklage kann auch gegen den eingetragenen Patentinhaber gerichtet werden. |
R 42, materieller Patentinhaber, R 25.1, R 361, eingetragener Patentinhaber, R 363, R 305.1(c), Nichtigkeitswiderklage |
|
|
25/09/2024 |
Innovative Sonic Corporation v. Lenovo, Motorola, Digital River |
UPC_CFI_340/2024 |
App_52697/2024 |
|
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
Übereinstimmender Antrag, R. 295 (d) VerfO, Aussetzung |
|
|
25/09/2024 |
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v. Valeo Electrification |
UPC_CFI_347/2024 |
|
ORD_53404/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. Evidence in PI proceedings is generally and primarily to be submitted in writing (R. 170.1 (a) and (b) RoP), with particular importance being attached to the submission of affidavits (R. 170.2 (h) RoP). In addition, the submission of physical objects, in particular devices, products, em-bodiments, exhibits and models (R. 170.1 (c) RoP), and of electronic files and au-dio/video files (R. 170.1 (d) RoP) may be an option. 2.The Court does not summon witnesses in PI proceedings and does not provide simultaneous interpretation in this respect. |
PI proceedings, Summon of witnesses, R. 210.2 RoP, Evidence |
|
|
24/09/2024 |
Eoflow v. Insulet |
UPC_CFI_380/2024 |
App_50666/2024 |
ORD_51234/2024 |
Application Rop 333 |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
Article 340 RoP - concept of "panels" - conditions for joinder- issuing of order by the judge rapporteur |
connection joinder |
|
|
24/09/2024 |
Unilever France v. I.G.B. S.r.l. |
UPC_CFI_494/2023 |
App_49796/2024 |
ORD_52883/2024 |
Amend Document |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
French |
|
1. Pursuant R. 263 RoP, a party may only be authorized, by the Court, to change its claims, on the twofold condition that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage of the proceedings and that it is not such as to disturb in an unreasonable way the conduct of the case. 2. The autorisation given by the Court, under rule R. 263 RdP, only concerns changed claims which have the effect of changing the subject matter and the scope of the dispute. 3. Changed claims that only complete those previously made do not constitute substantial modifications, which are likely to modify and affect the subject matter and the scope of the dispute and only relate to the implementation and enforcement modalities of a possible sentence. |
|
|
|
23/09/2024 |
Erik Krahbichler, SWAT Medical AB v. Edwards Lifesciences, Meril |
UPC_CFI_189/2024 |
App_33484/2024 |
ORD_36092/2024 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
1. The mere fact of operating in the same field as the patent in dispute is not sufficient to establish a specific interest in the case documents on the part of the applicant. |
public access to register |
|
|
20/09/2024 |
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v. Valeo Electrification |
UPC_CFI_347/2024 |
App_51893/2024 |
ORD_52043/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
18/09/2024 |
AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies LLC |
UPC_CoA_264/2024 |
APL_30168/2024 |
ORD_48996/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
DE
EN
FR