|
27/01/2025 |
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Asustek Computer Inc., Asus Computer Gmbh, Asustek (Uk) Limited |
UPC_CFI_302/2024 |
ACT_33753/2024 |
ORD_68771/2024 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
27/01/2025 |
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Asustek (Uk) Limited, Asus Computer Gmbh, Asustek Computer Inc. |
UPC_CFI_302/2024 |
ORD_4350/2025 |
ORD_4350/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
27/01/2025 |
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v. Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_244/2024_UPC_CFI_786/2024 |
ORD_4250/2025 |
ORD_4250/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. If a small enterprise shows an operating loss in the most recently prepared annual financial statement and if assets are not available as security to a sufficient extent, security is to be ordered at the request of the opposing party in accordance with Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. 2. When assessing the security, reasons of equity that become relevant for the subsequent determination of costs must be taken into account. This is because the assessment of the security must be based on the costs to be determined in accordance with Art. 69 UPCA; according to Art. 69 UPCA, reasons of equity may preclude the bearing of costs in whole or in part. 3. The possibility of a reduction of fees or costs for the purpose of granting effective access to justice is a principle determining UPC law. This must also be taken into account with respect to equity when assessing the amount of a security to be provided by a small enterprise. 4. A party that is able to pay both its own costs (court fees and representation costs) and a security set by the court is able to bear the costs. Legal aid cannot be granted in this case. |
security, small enterprise |
|
|
27/01/2025 |
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v. Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_244/2024_UPC_CFI_786/2024 |
ORD_4288/2025 |
ORD_4288/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Weist ein Kleinunternehmen im zuletzt erstellten Jahresabschluss einen Betriebsverlust aus und stehen Vermögenswerte als Sicherheit nicht in ausreichendem Maße zur Verfügung, ist auf Antrag des Gegners eine Sicherheitsleistung nach Regel 158 EPGVerfO anzuordnen. 2. Bei der Bemessung der Sicherheitsleistung sind für die spätere Kostenfestsetzung maßgeblich werdende Billigkeitsgründe zu berücksichtigen. Denn die Bemessung der Sicherheitsleistung hat sich an den nach Art. 69 EPGÜ festzusetzenden Kosten zu orientieren; nach Art. 69 EPGÜ können Billigkeitsgründe der Kostentragung ganz oder teilweise entgegenstehen. 3. Bei der Möglichkeit einer Gebühren- bzw. Kostenreduktion zum Zwecke der Gewährung des wirksamen Zugangs zum Recht handelt es sich um einen das EPG-Recht bestimmenden Grundsatz. Dieser ist als Billigkeitserwägung auch bei der Bemessung einer von einem Kleinunternehmen zu erbringenden Sicherheitsleistung zu beachten. 4. Eine Partei, die sowohl ihre eigenen Kosten (Gerichtsgebühren und Vertretungskosten) als auch eine gerichtlich festgesetzte Sicherheit leisten kann, ist zur Kostentragung im Stande. Prozesskostenhilfe kann in diesem Fall nicht bewilligt werden. |
Kleinunternehmen |
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Dainese v. Alpinestars S.P.A. Alpinestars S.p.A. Alpinestars Research S.p.A. Omnia Retail S.r.l. Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K. Motocard Bike S.l. |
UPC_CFI_472/2024 |
App_63772/2024 |
ORD_68843/2024 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Alpinestars Research S.P.A, Ulrich Herpich E.K, Alpinestars S.P.A., Omnia Retail S.R.L. , Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy , Motocard Bike, S.L. v. Dainese S.P.A. |
UPC_CFI_472/2024 |
App_63878/2024 |
ORD_68844/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
English |
|
Rule, 262 A.6 .RoP (“The number of persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be no greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the right of the parties to the legal proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and shall include, at least, one natural person from each party and the respective lawyers or other representatives of those parties to the legal proceedings) which is designed to protect the principle of the adversarial process, may be derogated: A) with parties' consent; B) in the event of interference of the patent system with the antitrust system: the Community system expressly allows that access is not granted to natural persons but only to their advisers (see EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ‘Communication on the protection of confidential information by national courts in proceedings concerning the private enforcement of EU competition law’ (2020/C 242/01, para. 61 |
rule 262 A ROP |
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Dexcom, Inc. / Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V |
UPC_CoA_505/2024 |
App_68655/2024 |
ORD_68847/2024 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Dexcom, Inc. / Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V |
UPC_CoA_569/2024 |
ORD_3184/2025 |
ORD_3184/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S |
UPC_CFI_54/2024-UPC_CFI_396/2024 |
App_66588/2024 |
ORD_68686/2024 |
Amend Document |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Heraeus Electronics Gmbh & Co. Kg v. Vibrantz Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_114_448/2024 |
ACT_13227/2024 |
ORD_68785/2024 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Photon Wave Co., Ltd. v. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_238/2024 |
ORD_3876/2025 |
ORD_3876/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Nec Corporation v. Tcl Deutschland Gmbh & Co. Kg, Tcl Operations Polska Sp. Z.O.O, Tct Mobile Germany Gmbh, Tct Mobile Europe Sas |
UPC_CFI_487/2023 |
App_2192/2025 |
ORD_2322/2025 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
In accordance with Rule 370 RoP, analogous court fees are payable for the filing of a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer. |
Reimbursement court fees, Counterclaim FRAND-offer, Obligation to pay court fees, Withdrawal |
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Institute Of Professional Representatives Before The European Patent Office v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, Microsoft Corporation |
UPC_CFI_164/2024 |
App_67889/2024 |
ORD_67980/2024 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
The interest in ensuring that the parties present their arguments and evidence and that the Court conducts the proceedings impartially and independently, without influence and interference from external parties in the public sector, is of the paramount importance and, as such, prevails over the competing interest in access to the case file where this latter interest cannot be satisfied through access to the written pleadings or evidence of the proceedings as the matter at hand concerns a purely legal and general issue. |
public access to register |
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott S.R.L., Abbott Gesellschaft M.B.H., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott, Abbott B.V. |
UPC_CoA_840/2024 |
App_1178/2025 |
ORD_3985/2025 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Sanofi v. Accord Healthcare, Stadapharm, Reddy, Betafarm, Zentiva |
UPC_CFI_145_147_148_374_463_496_503/2024 |
CC_49716/2024 |
ORD_68846/2024 |
Counterclaim for revocation |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
23/01/2025 |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_815/2024 |
ORD_3866/2025 |
ORD_3866/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Reference is made to the order of the Central Division, Paris Seat, of 30 July 2024 (APP_37662/2024 UPC_CFI_367/2023). The Court intends to follow this reasoning. |
Rule 262.2 RoP, application for confidentiality, cost proccedings, Rule 262A RoP |
|
|
23/01/2025 |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_815/2024 |
App_2875/2025 |
ORD_3758/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Rule 295.d RoP, partial stay, R 295.d RoP |
|
|
23/01/2025 |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_815/2024 |
App_2876/2025 |
ORD_3764/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Rule 295.d RoP |
|
|
23/01/2025 |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_815/2024 |
App_3108/2025 |
ORD_3774/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Deadline extension |
|
|
22/01/2025 |
Njoy Netherlands B.V v. Vmr Products Llc |
UPC_CFI_310/2023 |
ACT_571730-2023 |
ORD_598526/2023 |
Revocation Action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
Defendant's alternative request to maintain the patent at suit with respect to one or more of its dependent claims is a sufficiently clear request, even if it does not specify a particular claim, and, as such, imposes on the Court the obligation to rule on the matter and decide which claims, if any, remain valid. |
common general knowledge, late filed documents, validity of the patent |
|
|
22/01/2025 |
Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi S.R.L., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Ab, Sanofi-Aventis Gmbh, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland Gmbh, Sanofi Mature Ip, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v. Accord Healthcare Ab, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Gmbh, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare Bv, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda. |
UPC_CFI_145/2024 UPC_CFI_146/2024 UPC_CFI_147/2024 UPC_CFI_148/2024 |
ORD_3577/2025 |
ORD_3577/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Order following an oral argument hearing (“preliminary interim conference”). |
preliminary interim conference, Rule 105.5 RoP, oral argument hearing |
|
|
22/01/2025 |
Mammoet Holding B.V. v. P.T.S Machinery B.V. |
UPC_CFI_16/2025 |
ACT_1474/2025 |
ORD_3693/2025 |
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
22/01/2025 |
Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak Gmbh, Kodak Graphic Communications Gmbh , Kodak Holding Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_365/2023 |
ACT_579338/2023 |
ORD_598567/2023 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
21/01/2025 |
Air Up Group Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_508/2023 |
App_64021/2024 |
ORD_68822/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. The rules on service in the Rules of Procedure must be interpreted in accordance with the principle of effective legal protection. It must therefore always be possible to establish good service, at least in accordance with Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure. 2. Where it has not been possible to serve the application for a provisional measure in accordance with Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure and where there is no indication that the decision by default, which is issued subsequently in the same proceedings, can be served in accordance with Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure, it is not necessary to attempt to serve the decision by default in accordance with Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure before an order is made under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure. |
decision by default, effective legal protection, service |
|
|
21/01/2025 |
Kipa Ab v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, Smis, Sormedica |
UPC_CFI_380/2023 |
App_33375/2024 |
ORD_42124/2024 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
There is no legal basis for ordering a member of the public, who has made a request for access to written pleadings and evidence, to reimburse legal costs incurred by the parties to the relevant proceedings when they are consulted by the judge-rapporteur in accordance with Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Article 69 UPCA does not apply in this situation. Therefore, such requests for reimbursement of costs shall be dismissed. |
Article 69 UPCA, Rule 265 RoP, access to pleadings and evidence, Rule 262.1(b) RoP, legal costs, withdrawal, |
|
DE
EN