Moteur de recherche dans les décisions de 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

1077 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
13/09/2024	Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc.,	UPC_CFI_390/2023	ACT_583273/2023	ORD_598464/2023	Infringement Action	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	1. The subject-matter of the invention as derived from the description and drawings is protected only if it is so expressed in the language of the claims. 2. If several embodiments are presented in the description as being in accordance with the claimed invention, the terms used in the patent claim shall, in case of doubt, be understood in such a way that all embodiments fall under the claim construction. 3. A patent infringer under the UPCA is a person who acts as a manufacturer or supplier, or who appears to the relevant trade to be such a person, and who manufactures and/or sells the goods in his own name and for his own account. 4. If a company infringes a patent, the issuance of an order pursuant to Art. 63(1), 2nd sentence, UPCA (order against intermediaries) may be considered with regard to the organs that company.	Res judicata effects of foreign decisions, Right to be sued, Intermediary, Claim construction	DE EN
13/09/2024	Grundfos Holding A/S v. Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.	UPC_CFI_11/2024	ACT_2097/2024	ORD_50641/2024	Generic Order	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	German		Einheitliche Verhandlung Klage und Nichtigkeitswiderklage	DE EN
13/09/2024	QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v. EPO	UPC_CFI_427/2024	App_42538/2024	ORD_51358/2024	Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP88)	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English	The Application pursuant to R. 88 RoP has been processed by the Court and forwarded for interlocutory revision to the EPO, the Office has rectified the contested decision in accordance with the request and the submission of the Claimant doesn’t mention any particular circumstance justifying a decision of reimbursement. The case shall be closed without prior consultation of the parties.	Application pursuant to R. 88 RoP	EN
11/09/2024	PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH v. Danieli	UPC_CFI_337/2024	ACT_36483/2024	ORD_51269/2024	Order to preserve evidence	Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division	English			EN
09/09/2024	Panasonic v. Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo Gmbh	UPC_CFI_219/2023	App_45837/2024	ORD_47201/2024	Application Rop 333	Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
09/09/2024	Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Shenzen Yunding Information Technology	UPC_CFI_516/2024	ACT_50855/2024	ORD_50890/2024		Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division	German		The necessity of taking interim measures after issuing a cease-and-desist declaration and exhibiting at an international trade fair	DE EN
09/09/2024	Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.	UPC_CFI_88/2024	App_28467/2024	ORD_28786/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division	English			EN
09/09/2024	Philips IP Ventures B.V. v. 1) Stephen George Edrich 2) Belkin GmbH 3) Belkin International, Inc 4) Belkin Limited 5) Marc Gary Cooper 6) Paul John McKenna	UPC_CFI_5/2023	App_50655/2024	ORD_50820/2024		Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
09/09/2024	Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH	UPC_CFI_9/2024	ACT_459771/2023	ORD_50813/2024	Generic order	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
06/09/2024	Meril v. Edwards	UPC_CoA_457/2024	App_45041/2024	ORD_48424/2024	Generic application	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English			EN
06/09/2024	Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft.	UPC_CFI_165/2024	ACT_18492/2024	ORD_50564/2024	Application for provisional measures	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English	1. Art. 25 UPCA constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws and whose content is to be interpreted independently by the Court. 2. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer has already set the stage for it to occur. The infringement is only a matter of starting the action. The preparations for it have been fully completed. These circumstances must be assessed on a case by case basis. 3. Companies that are members of a group and play a key role in a distribution network for the infringing product – such as a sole manufacturer or a European sales and marketing hub – may also be considered as infringers if they are located outside the Contracting Member States but supply their products to other members of the group located in the Contracting Member States, while these companies distribute these products on the European market, including at least one Contracting Member State where the patent in suit is valid. 4. Rule R. 295 RoP (stay of proceedings) refers to actions and is therefore not applicable to applications for provisional measures. 5. The interpretation of the patent is not only mandatory for the Court, but also for the parties, who must submit their views on their proposed interpretation in their briefs. 6. It is the task of the parties to present technical arguments to the Court in a concentrated and comprehensible form. In particular, the technical argumentation must be focused and precise for the Court in order to be able to comply with the ambitious time limits set by the law. This is even more true in PI proceedings.	Lis pendens, imminent infringement, provisional measures, claim interpretation	EN
06/09/2024	Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc. v. Celltrion Inc.	UPC_CFI_166/2024	ACT_18551/2024	ORD_50565/2024	Application for provisional measures	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English	1. Art. 25 UPCA constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws and whose content is to be interpreted independently by the Court. 2. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer has already set the stage for it to occur. The infringement is only a matter of starting the action. The preparations for it have been fully completed. These circumstances must be assessed on a case by case basis. 3. Companies that are members of a group and play a key role in a distribution network for the infringing product – such as a sole manufacturer or a European sales and marketing hub – may also be considered as infringers if they are located outside the Contracting Member States but supply their products to other members of the group located in the Contracting Member States, while these companies distribute these products on the European market, including at least one Contracting Member State where the patent in suit is valid. 4. Rule R. 295 RoP (stay of proceedings) refers to actions and is therefore not applicable to applications for provisional measures. 5. The interpretation of the patent is not only mandatory for the Court, but also for the parties, who must submit their views on their proposed interpretation in their briefs. 6. It is the task of the parties to present technical arguments to the Court in a concentrated and comprehensible form. In particular, the technical argumentation must be focused and precise for the Court in order to be able to comply with the ambitious time limits set by the law. This is even more true in PI proceedings.	claim interpretation, provisional measures, Lis pendens, imminent infringement	EN
06/09/2024	SodaStream Industries v. Aarke AB	UPC_CFI_373/2023	App_47922/2024	ORD_48181/2024	Application Rop 333	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English			EN
06/09/2024	Meril v. Edwards	UPC_CoA_458/2024	App_45044/2024	ORD_48422/2024	Generic application	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English			EN
06/09/2024	Motorola Mobility LLC v. Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson GmbH	UPC_CoA_489/2024	APL_47300/2024	ORD_48358/2024	Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English			EN
05/09/2024	Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.	UPC_CoA_207/2024	APL_24598/2024	ORD_42779/2024	Appeal RoP220.2	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	German			DE EN
05/09/2024	Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.	UPC_CoA_106/2024	APL_12739/2024	ORD_42780/2024	Appeal RoP220.2	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	German	1. Eine Verbindung wegen Zusammenhangs gemäß R. 340 VerfO kann nicht dazu führen, dass eine Klage an eine andere Kammer des Gerichts erster Instanz außerhalb der Möglichkeiten der Verweisung von Klagen gemäß Art. 33 EPGÜ verwiesen wird. 2. Art. 33 EPGÜ lässt die Verweisung einer Verletzungsklage von einer Lokalkammer an die Zentralkammer ohne Zustimmung der Parteien nicht zu.	Verweisung einer Verletzungsklage, Verbindung wegen Zusammenhangs, Berufung	DE EN
05/09/2024	Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v. 1. Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, 2. S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International	UPC_CFI_486/2024	ACT_47064/2024	ORD_47991/2024	Application for provisional measures	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
04/09/2024	A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v. Insulet Corporation v. A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.	UPC_CFI_400/2024	App_40442/2024	ORD_45723/2024		Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division				EN
04/09/2024	Eoflow v. Insulet	UPC_CFI_380/2024	-	ORD_48857/2024	Application for provisional measures (RoP206	Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section	English			EN
03/09/2024	AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v. DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C	UPC_CoA_188/2024	APL_21943/2024	ORD_42716/2024	Appeal RoP220.2	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	German			DE EN
03/09/2024	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	UPC_CFI_219/2023	APL_21943/2024	ORD_50015/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
02/09/2024	Panasonic Holdings v. Guangdong OPPO, OROPE	UPC_CFI_221/2024	App_33757/2024	ORD_40296/2024	Application Rop305	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	Der Antrag auf Zulassung einer Parteierweiterung wurde zurückgewiesen.	Zurückweisung, R 305 VerfO, Parteierweiterung	DE EN
02/09/2024	Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG	UPC_CFI_368/2024	App_48579/2024	ORD_48962/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English		no reallocation of a TQJ	EN
30/08/2024	Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE	UPC_CFI_52/2023	ACT_462984/2023	ORD_598434/2023	Infringement Action	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	1. Auf die Nichtigkeitswiderklagen wird das europäische Patent 1 838 002 für das Gebiet der Bundesrepublik Deutschland für nichtig erklärt. 2. Die Anträge auf Änderung des Klagepatents werden zurückgewiesen. 3. Die Verletzungsklage wird abgewiesen. 4. Die Klägerin hat die Kosten des Rechtsstreits zu tragen.	Verletzungsklage, Nichtigkeitswiderklage	DE EN

1 ... 26 27 28 ... 44