18/12/2024 |
Yves Prevoo, Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V. v. Visibly Inc. |
UPC_CFI_525/2024 |
App_58871/2024 |
ORD_60677/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. An alleged patent infringement is a matter of tort, delict or quasi-delict in the meaning of Art. 7 sub (2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation. Thus, the UPC has jurisdiction also for claims based on personal (director) liability with regards to an alleged infringement of a European patent under Article 32 UPCA. 2. Whether the director of a company can be successfully sued before the UPC and held liable for the infringement of a patent is a liable is a question of the merits of the case which is not subject to the determination of jurisdiction and competence. |
Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA, Art. 33 (1) (a) UPCA, Jurisdiction, Rule 19 RoP, preliminary objection |
|
17/12/2024 |
Curio Bioscience Inc. vs. 10x Genomics, Inc. |
UPC_CoA_810/2024 |
App_66516/2024 |
ORD_66752/2024 |
Application Rop 223 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
17/12/2024 |
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc., |
UPC_CFI_390/2023 |
App_60589/2024 |
ORD_60616/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
17/12/2024 |
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v. Himson Engineering Private Limited |
UPC_CFI_240/2022 |
ACT_549550/2023 |
ORD_598537/2023 |
Infringement action |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
Italian |
|
|
|
|
17/12/2024 |
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v. President and Fellows of Harvard College |
UPC_CFI_252/2023 |
App_56792/2024 |
ORD_56957/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
|
|
|
13/12/2024 |
ICPillar LLC v. ARM |
UPC_CFI_495/2023 |
App_61630/2024 |
ORD_64845/2024 |
- |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
12/12/2024 |
Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v. Syngenta Limited |
UPC_CFI_201/2024 |
ORD_65555/2024 |
ORD_65555/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
12/12/2024 |
Microsoft Corporation |
UPC_CFI_164/2024 |
App_64780/2024 |
ORD_65604/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
12/12/2024 |
Valeo Electrification v. Magna |
UPC_CFI_459/2024 |
App_64571/2024 |
ORD_64785/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2024 |
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH |
UPC_CFI_791/2024 |
ACT_65376/2024 |
ORD_65389/2024 |
Application for provisional measures |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
GER 1. Art. 32 (1) a), c) EPGÜ eröffnen die sachliche Zuständigkeit des EPG für den Erlass einstweiliger Maßnahmen, mit denen ein Antragsteller um Rechtsschutz vor drohenden (ausländischen) Prozessführungs- und/oder Vollstreckungsverboten nachsucht. 2. Ein (ausländisches) Prozessführungs- und/oder Vollstreckungsverbot verstößt gegen den allgemeinen europäischen Justizgewährungsanspruch (Art. 47 EU-Charta). Die Verbote stehen auch im Widerspruch zum deutschen Justizgewährungsanspruch gem. Art. 2 Abs. 1, 19 Abs. 4 GG und sind als unerlaubte Handlung im Sinne des § 823 Abs. 1 BGB zu qualifizieren. |
ASI; AEI; AASI; AAEI |
|
11/12/2024 |
DexCom, Inc. v. Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu,Inc., Abbott B.V., Abbott, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott France, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Oy |
UPC_CFI_395/2023 |
ACT_583778/2023 |
ORD_63909/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
English |
|
1. The order pursuant to Rule 36 RoP issued by the judge-rapporteur relates to adding some arguments to the debate related to some specific terms regarding claim interpretation, but it did not authorise the defendant to raise a new ground for revocation. The UPC procedure is a front-loaded system and the Court finds no legitimate reason for the defendant, which had already stated its own claim interpretation in its Statement of Defence and counterclaim, to raise a new ground for revocation at a later stage of the proceedings concerning the validity of the patent as granted. The additional ground concerning the patent as granted raised in the Rejoinder to the reply to the Statement of Defence is inadmissible pursuant to Rule 9.2 RoP. 2. As regards the claim interpretation, the Court adopted a “whole-content approach”. In the present case, a question to be addressed is whether the skilled person considering a claim would be confronted with new technical information based on what was derivable, directly and unambiguously, from the whole contents of the description, claims, and figures of the earlier application. |
Inventive step, Article 56 EPC, Auxiliary request, Admissibility, R. 36 RoP, R. 9.2 RoP, Validity, Article 138 (1)(c) EPC, Added-matter |
|
11/12/2024 |
Dolby International AB v. Access Advance LLC v. HP |
UPC_CFI_457/2023 |
App_60701/2024 |
ORD_61611/2024 |
- |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2024 |
Hand Held Products, Inc. v. Scandit AG |
UPC_CoA_520/2024 |
App_64946/2024 |
ORD_65341/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2024 |
Hand Held Products, Inc. v. Scandit AG |
UPC_CFI_664/2024 |
- |
ORD_65439/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2024 |
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v. Valeo Electrification |
UPC_CoA_719/2024 |
ORD_65525/2024 |
ORD_65525/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2024 |
VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, MERIL GMBH, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, INTERLUX, UAB, SORMEDICA, UAB |
UPC_CFI_380/2023 |
App_14299/2024 |
ORD_65290/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
10/12/2024 |
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB |
UPC_CFI_380/2023 |
ACT_582093/2023 |
ORD_598531/2023 |
Infringement action |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
10/12/2024 |
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College |
UPC_CoA_470/2023 |
APL_593120/2023 |
ORD_598533/2023 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
1. Die Aufhebung gemäß Art. 75(1) EPGÜ und R. 242.1 VerfO einer Anordnung des Gerichts erster Instanz, mit der eine einstweilige Verfügung erlassen worden ist, ist in der Regel rückwirkend. Die Anordnung wird aufgehoben, weil durch eine rechtskräftige Anordnung des Berufungsgerichts festgestellt worden ist, dass die Anordnung nicht hätte erlassen werden dürfen. Eine aufgehobene Anordnung ist daher als von Anfang an ohne rechtliche Wirkung zu betrachten. Daraus folgt, dass die Aufhebung einer Anordnung des Gerichts erster Instanz, mit der eine einstweilige Verfügung unter Androhung von Zwangsgeldern erlassen worden ist, die rechtliche Grundlage für jede nachfolgende Entscheidung, die die Zahlung von Zwangsgeldern anordnet, beseitigt, selbst wenn diese Entscheidung mutmaßliche Verstöße gegen die einstweilige Verfügung vor der Aufhebung betrifft. |
Aufhebung einer Anordnung, Verhängung von Zwangsgeldern, Einstweilige Verfügung, Berufung |
|
09/12/2024 |
air up group GmbH V. Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology |
UPC_CFI_508/2023 |
App_64018/2024 |
ORD_64895/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
09/12/2024 |
air up group GmbH V. Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology |
UPC_CFI_508/2023 |
App_64011/2024 |
ORD_64864/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
09/12/2024 |
air up group GmbH V. Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology |
UPC_CFI_509/2023 |
App_64019/2024 |
ORD_64876/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
09/12/2024 |
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation |
UPC_CFI_755/2024 |
ACT_63549/2024 |
ORD_64861/2024 |
Application for provisional measures |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Art. 32 (1) a) and c) establish jurisdiction of the UPC for issuing provisional measures through which an applicant seeks legal protection against impending (foreign) prohibitions on litigation and/or enforcement. A (foreign) ban on conducting and/or enforcing proceedings violates the general European right to access to justice (Art. 47 EU Charter). The prohibitions also contradict the German right to access to justice under Art. 2 (1), 19 (4) of the German Constitution and are to be qualified as a tortious act within the meaning of § 823 (1) of the German Civil Code. Special circumstances within the meaning of Rule 211.5 RoP cannot be justified only by the (allegedly) long duration of the procurement of a security. Rule 213.1 RoP does not give the court any discretion. |
GERMAN Anti Anti Suit Injunction; Zuständigkeit; Anordnun einstweilige Maßnahmen; Sicherheitsleistung gem. Regel 211.5 RoP; Frist gem. Regel 213 RoP. ENGLISH competence; Order provisional measures; security RoP 211.5; time limit RoP 213. |
|
03/12/2024 |
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v. Dyson Technology |
UPC_CoA_297/2024 |
APL_32012/2024 |
ORD_62483/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
03/12/2024 |
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Inc, Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V. v. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. |
UPC_CFI_476/2024 |
App_56246/2024 |
ORD_58802/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
|
|
|
03/12/2024 |
10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience |
UPC_CFI_140/2024 |
App_48598/2024 |
ORD_48718/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. Not only the claimant but also the defendant may be ordered to provide security for legal costs within the meaning of R. 158 RoP. 2. If the claimant requests such a security for legal costs to be provided by the defendant, the Court has to take into account that the claimant made a voluntary decision to litigate. This circumstance does have implications for the weighing of interests when exercising the discretion under Rule 158 RoP. In doing so, special care must be taken by the Court that the Defendant’s right to a fair trial is protected and particularly that the Defendant is not denied the opportunity to present its case effectively before the Court. |
Security of costs, Art. 64 UPCA, R. 158 RoP, Order against the defendant |
|