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

1311 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
10/01/2025	Valeo Electrification v. Magna	UPC_CFI_459/2024 UPC_CFI_657/2024	App_68589/2024	ORD_68626/2024	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English			EN
10/01/2025	Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc.	UPC_CFI_152/2024	App_1411/2025	ORD_1784/2025	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	1. Den Anträgen auf Zulassung der Rücknahme der wird stattgegeben. 2. Das Verfahren betreffend die Klage auf Feststellung der Nichtverletzung (ACT_16294/2024 UPC_CFI_152/2024) 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 für die Klage wird auf 1 Mio. € festgesetzt. 6. Die Klagepartei erhält eine Erstattung von 40 Prozent der einbezahlten Gerichtsgebühren für die Klage. 7. Die Termine für die Zwischenanhörung am 16. Januar 2025 und für die mündliche Verhandlung am 25. März 2025 werden abgesetzt.	Regel 265 VerfO	DE EN
10/01/2025	Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited	UPC_CFI_9/2023	App_1208/2025	ORD_1830/2025	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	1. Eine Rücknahme ist bis zum Eintritt der Rechtskraft und daher auch nach Erlass einer erstinstanzlichen aber noch nicht rechtskräftigen Entscheidung möglich. 2. Vorliegend ist die Entscheidung vom 18. Dezember 2024 noch nicht rechtskräftig.	Regel 265 VerfO	DE EN
09/01/2025	A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v. Insulet Corporation	UPC_CoA_769/2024	App_68623/2024	ORD_68752/2024	Generic application	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English	R.301.2 RoP grants an automatic extension of the time period until the end of the first working day following the day on which it is once again possible for the court to receive documents.	English Keywords:	EN
09/01/2025	Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Powell Gilbert LLP	UPC_CoA_480/2024 UPC_CoA_481/2024	APL_46747/2024	ORD_67618/2024	Appeal RoP220.2	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English		R.301 RoP, automatic extension of time periods	EN
09/01/2025	ITCiCo Spain S.L. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft	UPC_CFI_412/2023	App_56176/2024	ORD_58414/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English	Rule 356 (2) ‘RoP’, insofar as it requires an explanation of the default, shall be interpreted to mean that the applicant must demonstrate that they were unable to comply with peremptory time limits or to appear at the oral hearing at which they were summoned (except as provided for in Rule 116 and 117 ‘RoP’) due to reasons beyond their control and therefore that the default is not attributable to their own fault but was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure.	decision by default	EN
09/01/2025	air up group GmbH V. Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology	UPC_CFI_509/2023	-	ORD_1375/2025 ORD_1378/2025	Decision By Default	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English			EN
09/01/2025	Autohaus Adelbert Moll Gmbh & Co. Kg, Xpeng Motors (Netherlands) Bv , Asian Motors Sales Bv, Moll Gmbh & Co.Kg, Xpeng European Holding Bv , Jean Lain Automobiles Sas, Hedin Automotive Sa, Xpeng Motors (Belgium) Sarl , E-Lain Sas, Ejner Hessel A/S, Bilia Ab, Xpeng Motors France Sarl v. ArcelorMittal	UPC_CFI_583/2024	App_63864/2024	ORD_64888/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division	English			EN
09/01/2025	air up group GmbH V. Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology	UPC_CFI_508/2023	-	ORD_1358/2025 ORD_1359/2025	Decision By Default	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English			EN
08/01/2025	Meril Italy srl Meril Life Science Private Limited Meril GmbH SWAT Medical	UPC_CFI_189/2024	App_56782/2024	ORD_59519/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English	1. For the purpose of interpreting Rule 150 ‘RoP’, a “decision on the merits” must be understood as a decision that concludes litigation proceedings, that is proceedings where the ascertainment of a right is sought by one party against another and is capable of producing the effects of res judicata on conflicting subjective positions. 2. The proceedings initiated by the request by a member of the public to have access to the register cannot be considered as litigation in a technical sense even if the application introduces an adversarial phase as it is merely instrumental to the purpose of enhancing transparency in the judicial activity, aims to the protection of the general and collective interest of the public and not to the protection of the particular interests of the applicant or of the parties in the main dispute and the Court's intervention is primarily administrative in nature, lacking the characteristics of a judgment with res judicata effects on conflicting subjective positions.	procedure for cost decisions, public access to the register.	EN
08/01/2025	MediaTek Inc. v. DAEDALUS PRIME LLC, XIAOMI	UPC_CoA_621/2024	App_67902/2024	ORD_68032/2024	Application Rop313	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English			EN
07/01/2025	Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH	UPC_CFI_208/2024	App_66758/2024	ORD_67255/2024	-	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
07/01/2025	Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH	UPC_CFI_145/2024 UPC_CFI_146/2024 UPC_CFI_147/2024 UPC_CFI_148/2024	App_54972/2024	ORD_59770/2024	Application Rop305	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	1. Sanofi-Aventis France is replaced by Sanofi Winthrop Industrie in the present action and all related proceedings (UPC_CFI_146/2024, UPC_CFI_147/2024 and UPC_CFI_148/2024). 2. Claimant No. 3 shall be designated “Sanofi Winthrop Industrie as successor of Sanofi-Aventis France”. 3. The name of Claimant No. 2 shall stay “Sanofi Winthrop Industrie”. 4. This replacement of parties has no consequence on the proceedings within the meaning of Rules 306 and 310 RoP. Sanofi Winthrop Industrie as successor of Sanofi-Aventis France is bound by the proceedings as now constituted. 5. All further requests are dismissed.	Rule 306 RoP, successor of a party, party ceases to exist, Rule 305 RoP, Rule 310 RoP	EN
07/01/2025	DexCom, Inc. v Abbott	UPC_CFI_499/2023	App_67755/2024	-	-	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English			EN
07/01/2025	Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH	UPC_CFI_504/2024	App_66720/2024	ORD_67258/2024	-	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
07/01/2025	Dyson Technology Limited v SharkNinja	UPC_CFI_322/2024	App_159/2025	ORD_499/2025	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	1. Das Verletzungsverfahren (ACT_35930/2024) und das Widerklageverfahren (CC_54802/2024) werden ausgesetzt. 2. Die Termine vom 8. Mai 2025 (Zwischentermin) und 3.6.2025 (Haupttermin) werden abgesetzt.	Regel 295.d VerfO, Aussetzung	DE EN
03/01/2025	Berggren Oy v. NanoString Technologies, President and Fellows of Harvard College	UPC_CFI_252/2023	App_61570/2024	ORD_62447/2024	Application RoP262.1 (b)	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section	English	Access to documents granted. General interest.	Access to written pleadings and evidence, 262.1(b) application	EN
02/01/2025	Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH	UPC_CFI_168/2024	ACT_18917/2024	ORD_48265/2024	Generic Order	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	Die Verletzungsklage und die Nichtigkeitswiderklage CC_20512/2024 werden zusammen vor der Lokalkammer München verhandelt.	Regel 37 VerfO	DE EN
30/12/2024	Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.	UPC_CFI_173/2024 UPC_CFI_424/2024	App_62431/2024	ORD_63489/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division	German	1. Der Berichterstatter hat den Grundsatz der Verfahrensökonomie nicht nur in Bezug auf die Parteien, sondern als Stellvertreter auch für den Spruchkörper insgesamt im Blick zu behalten. 2. Die Verfahrensökonomie gebietet es regelmäßig nicht, im Rahmen einer Vorabentscheidung durch den Spruchkörper nach Regel 334 lit. h) VerfO über die materielle Zulässigkeit von Klageänderungsanträgen (R. 263 VerfO) zu entscheiden, die auf Anträgen auf Änderung des Patents (R. 30 VerfO) beruhen. 3. Materielle Entscheidungen von dieser Tragweite sind regelmäßig dem Hauptverfahren, namentlich der mündlichen Verhandlung, insbesondere der Endentscheidung durch den Spruchkörper zu überlassen.	Regel 263 VerfO. Klageänderungsanträge (R. 263 VerfO), die auf einem Antrag auf Änderung des Patents (R. 30 VerfO) beruhen. Vorabentscheidung nach durch den Spruchkörper nach Regel 334 lit. h) VerfO	DE EN
30/12/2024	Eoflow v. Insulet	UPC_CFI_400/2024	App_58035/2024	ORD_60558/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division	English	In proceedings for costs decision under rules 150 RoP et seq. an already existing decision on costs in principle is required. Indeed, an application for a cost decision shall contain, inter alias, under rule 156 RoP (e) the preliminary estimate of the legal costs that the party sub-mitted pursuant to Rule 118. 5. RoP. 2. In proceedings for costs decision, it is not for the Judge rapporteur to decide what percentage of the costs should be shared between the parties or whether they should be set off, only dealing with the fixation of the amount of compensation for costs by not with the principle decision on the costs. 3. The cost decision is binding on the cost award decision: the judge rapporteur may not ap-portion the costs in accordance with the quotas provided for in the cost decision, in case the latter is lacking.	RoP 150, RoP 151, RoP156, RoP 313, RoP 314, Art. 69 UPCA	EN
30/12/2024	Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH	UPC_CFI_168/2024	ACT_18917/2024	ORD_68568/2024	Generic Order	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	Die Präsidentin des Gerichts erster Instanz wird gebeten, dem Verfahren mit Wirkung ab dem 1. Januar 2025 einen anderen technisch qualifizierten Richter zuzuweisen	Rücktritt eines Richters, Art. 9.2 Statuten, Regel 34 1 VerfO	DE EN
27/12/2024	Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH v. Ona Patents SL	UPC_CFI_99/2024	App_41756/2024	ORD_42984/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English		R. 158 RoP, Security for costs	EN
27/12/2024	Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited v. Ona Patents SL	UPC_CFI_100/2024	App_41418/2024	ORD_43125/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English		Security for costs, R. 158 RoP	EN
27/12/2024	Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy	UPC_CFI_164/2024	App_61655/2024	ORD_63208/2024	Generic Order	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English	1. Where the Court has already ordered a party to provide security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred or to be incurred by the opposing party, a subsequent request by this latter party for an additional security (compared to that already granted) shall be considered as request to modify the security already granted by increasing its amount.	security for costs	EN
27/12/2024	Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation	UPC_CFI_164/2024	App_55923/2024	ORD_62910/2024	Application Rop 333	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English	1. The incorrect citation of the legal provisions upon which an application is grounded does not relieve the Court of its obligation to consider the motion where it is possible to identify the correct legal grounds based on the legal arguments and factual grounds put forward by the applicant in support of the application. 2. Where, after issuing an order granting a security for costs and any subsequent appeal, there is a change in the factual circumstances underlying the order, the party affected by the measure, as well as the party benefiting from it, may apply to the Court to revoke the order or vary its terms. Granting this opportunity to the parties, even in absence of a specific and direct legal provision, is necessary to render the measure consistent with its purpose, namely to address the risk of non-recovery or significant difficulty in recovering costs of the proceedings. 3. In a situation in which the security amount for costs has been specifically set with regard to the maximum recoverable costs, as determined by the value of the proceedings indicated by the claimant, the subsequent reduction of damages claimed is of no relevance to the determination of this value because the latter shall reflect the objective interest pursued by the claimant at the time of the filing of the action, according to Rule 370 (6) ‘RoP’, and any subsequent modifications to that interest are immaterial.	value of the proceedings, security for costs	EN

1 ... 27 28 29 ... 53