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

1373 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
10/02/2025	Dolby International v. ASUS	UPC_CFI_456/2023	App_68380/2024	ORD_68548/2024	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
10/02/2025	Ssab Europe Oy, Ssab Swedish Steel Gmbh v. Tiroler Rohre Gmbh	UPC_CFI_640/2024	ACT_59020/2024	ORD_65844/2024	Application For Costs	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
08/02/2025	Motorola Mobility LLC v. Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson GmbH	UPC_CFI_488/2023	App_1202/2025	ORD_6639/2025	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English			EN
07/02/2025	Dainese v. Alpinestars S.P.A. Alpinestars S.p.A. Alpinestars Research S.p.A. Omnia Retail S.r.l. Horizon Moto 95 - Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K. Motocard Bike S.l.	UPC_CFI_472/2024	App_5885/2025	ORD_5965/2025	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section	English	1. The position of the party attacking the patent shall be protected in the proceedings to the same extent as that of the party defending the patent. 2. Using the power of case management, which includes encouraging the parties to cooperate with each other during the proceedings (see Rule 332(a) of the Rules of Procedure), and pursuant to Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the parties are invited to submit a -possibly joint -request for the alignment of future procedural deadlines	RULE 332 ROP. RULE 9, para 4, ROP,	EN
06/02/2025	Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., Orope Germany Gmbh	UPC_CFI_210/2023	ACT_545551/2023	ORD_6393/2025	Counterclaim for revocation	Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division	German	Finale redigierte Fassung der SEP-Entscheidung der Lokalkammer Mannheim vom 22. November 2024 nach Abstimmung mit den Parteien		DE EN
05/02/2025	Hurom Co., Ltd v. NUC Electronics, Warmcook	UPC_CFI_163/2024	App_4027/2025	ORD_4336/2025	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division	English			EN
05/02/2025	Ericsson Gmbh, Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson	UPC_CFI_740/2024	App_3212/2025	ORD_6149/2025	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English			EN
05/02/2025	Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.R.L.	UPC_CFI_501/2023	ACT_597277/2023	ORD_598573/2023	Infringement Action	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	summons to oral hearing		EN
05/02/2025	Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson GmbH v. Motorola Mobility Llc	UPC_CFI_740/2024	App_368/2025	ORD_6152/2025	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	1. A Preliminary objection can also be raised with regard to a counterclaim for revocation. 2. Art. 33 (2) UPCA must be interpreted in such a way that this provision is not only applicable if an action between the same parties on the same patent is brought before several different divisions, but equally if an action between the same parties on the same patent is brought twice before the same division (argumentum a fortiori). 3. In the event of a decision of the judge-rapporteur allowing the Preliminary objection concerning a counterclaim for revocation there is no legal basis for a separate decision on the costs relating to this objection.	counterclaim for revocation, preliminary objection	EN
04/02/2025	Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock	UPC_CFI_218/2023	App_67930/2024	ORD_68911/2024	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division	German	1. Im Rahmen der Anwendung der Gebührenerstattungstatbestände der Regel 370.9(b) und (c) VerfO kommt es auf den materiellen Stand des Verfahrens an. 2. Insbesondere in komplexen Verfahren, die durch eine Vielzahl von begleitenden Geheimnisschutz- und Vorlageanträgen gekennzeichnet sind, kommt eine Kürzung oder Verweigerung der Gebührenerstattung nach Regel 370.9(e) VerfO in Betracht.	Kürzung oder Verweigerung der Gebührenerstattung	DE EN
03/02/2025	Panasonic Holdings v. Guangdong OPPO, OROPE	UPC_CFI_210/2023	App_67470/2024	ORD_68887/2024	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division	German	Bei Rücknahme einer Klage nach Verkündung der Endentscheidung findet eine Gebührenerstattung nicht statt.	Rücknahme Gebührenerstattung Endentscheidung	DE EN
03/02/2025	Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v. ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH	UPC_CFI_63/2025	ACT_3930/2025	ORD_4338/2025	Application Rop 192	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
03/02/2025	Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.,v. Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Powerdeal Srl, Libra Energy, VDH Solar Groothandel, Coenergia Srl	UPC_CFI_336/2024_UPC_CFI_605/2024	App_1872/2025	ORD_3004/2025	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English			EN
03/02/2025	Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock	UPC_CFI_219/2023	App_67924/2024	ORD_68886/2024	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division	German	1. Auch bei Erhöhung des Streitwerts einer Verletzungsklage verbleibt es bei der Rücknahme (auch) der Nichtigkeitswiderklage trotz der Erhöhung bei einer Rückerstattung aufgrund R 370.6 VerfO. 2.Bei Rücknahme erst kurz vor einem den Parteien mitgeteilten Termin zur Verkündung einer Entscheidung kommt eine Verweigerung oder Kürzung der Rückerstattung nach Regel 370.9(e)VerfO in Betracht.	Rücknahme Nichtigkeitswiderklage Streitwerterhöhung	DE EN
31/01/2025	Rematec Gmbh & Co Kg v. Europe Forestry B.V.	UPC_CFI_340/2023	ACT_576606/2023	ORD_598550/2023	Infringement Action	Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
30/01/2025	Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak Gmbh, Kodak Holding Gmbh, Kodak Graphic Communications Gmbh	UPC_CFI_365/2023	ACT_578818/2023	ORD_598571/2023	Infringement Action	Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division	English			EN
30/01/2025	Adeia Guides Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited	UPC_CFI_665/2024	App_4703/2025	ORD_5020/2025	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English		deadline extension	EN
29/01/2025	C-Kore Systems Limited v. Novawell	UPC_CFI_468/2023	App_65953/2024	ORD_68856/2024	Application Rop 365	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division	English			EN
29/01/2025	Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited	UPC_CFI_424/2023	App_68468/2024	ORD_68867/2024	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division	English	Withdrawal of the infringement claim as well as the counter claims granted and partial reimbursement of paid court fees ordered.	Withdrawal	EN
29/01/2025	Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited	UPC_CFI_424/2023	App_68474/2024	ORD_68648/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division	English	Withdrawal of the infringement claim as well as the counter claims granted and partial reimbursement of paid court fees ordered, also in the counter claims.	reimbursement, counterclaim	EN
29/01/2025	Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited	UPC_CFI_424/2023	App_68465/2024	ORD_68866/2024	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division	English	Withdrawal of the infringement claim as well as the counter claims granted and partial reimbursement of paid court fees ordered.	Withdrawal	EN
28/01/2025	Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak Holding Gmbh, Kodak Gmbh, Kodak Graphic Communications Gmbh	UPC_CFI_355/2023	ACT_578607/2023	ORD_598539/2023	Infringement Action	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English	1. If the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State (here: Germany), the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK part of the patent in suit. This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. The terms used in a claim should normally be given their broadest technically sensible meaning in the context of the claim in which they appear. Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol do not provide a justification for excluding what is literally covered by the terms of the claims by a narrowing claim construction based on the description or the drawings. A narrowing interpretation of the claims which deviates from the broader general understanding of the terms used therein by a skilled person can only be permitted if there are convincing reasons based on the circumstances of the individual case in question. 3. Implicit disclosure means no more than the clear, immediate and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned in a prior-art document. Therefore, “implicit disclosure” encompasses any feature which a person skilled in the art would objectively consider as necessarily implied in the explicit content of a prior-art document, e.g. in view of general scientific laws. A claimed feature is also implicitly disclosed if, in carrying out the teaching of a prior-art document, the skilled person would inevitably arrive at a result falling within the terms of a claim. Whether a known product possesses an implicit feature does not depend on whether the skilled person's attention is drawn to precisely that feature by a prior art document or their common general knowledge, but merely on whether, from a purely objective perspective, said product inevitably must possess that feature. 4. To comply with Art. 123(2) EPC, the subject-matter of an amended claim must be directly and unambiguously taught to the skilled person by the original application. A direct teaching requires that the subject-matter is originally taught as specific, clearly defined and recognizable individual embodiment, either explicitly or implicitly, without the necessity of applying any deductive skills. An unambiguous teaching requires that it has to be beyond doubt – not merely probable – that the claimed subject-matter of an amended claim was disclosed as such in the application as originally filed.	added matter, implicit disclosure, Long arm jurisdiction, narrowing claim construction	EN
28/01/2025	Qualcomm Incorporated v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings, Tecno Mobile Ltd, Infinix Mobility Ltd, Tekpoint GmbH, Galaxus Deutschland GmbH,	UPC_CFI_421/2024	App_2710/2025	ORD_2863/2025	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English		Withdrawal, Reimbursement court fees	EN
27/01/2025	Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation	UPC_CFI_755/2024	App_2740/2025	ORD_3075/2025	-	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	If an applicant withdraws the application for interim measures after an ex parte order has been issued but before it has been reviewed, reimbursement of the court fees paid in the amount of 20% pursuant to Rule 370.9 (b) (iii) of the Rules of Procedure may be considered by analogy.	Ex-parte Anordnung, Rücknahme, Ex-parte Anordnung, Antrag auf Erlass einstweiliger Maßnahmen, Gebührenerstattung	DE EN
27/01/2025	Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft Mbb	UPC_CFI_52/2023	App_65499/2024	ORD_68640/2024	Application RoP262.1 (b)	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN

1 ... 26 27 28 ... 55