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

1405 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
11/02/2025	Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation	UPC_CoA_563/2024	APL_53716/2024	ORD_68946/2024	Appeal RoP220.2	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English	No corporate representative of a legal person or any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person, whether as a result of holding a high-level management or administrative position or holding a significant amount of shares in the legal person, may serve as a representative of that legal person, regardless of whether said corporate representative of the legal person or natural person is qualified to act as a UPC representative in accordance with Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA. • One of the objectives of parties being represented by a lawyer is, among other things, to ensure that legal persons are defended by a representative who is sufficiently distant from the legal person which he or she represents. • The independent exercise of the duties of a representative is not undermined by the mere fact that the lawyer or the European patent attorney, qualified as a representative under Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA, is employed by the party he or she represents. • A representative who is employed by a party must act towards the Court as an independent counsellor by serving the interests of his or her client in an unbiased manner without regard to his or her personal feelings or interests, pursuant to Art. 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct for Representatives who appear before the Court according to R. 290.2 RoP.	Representation of parties in proceedings before the UPC, Art. 48 UPCA	EN
10/02/2025	AIM Sport Vision AG v TGI Sport Suomi Oy (previously Supponor Oy), TGI Sport Virtual Limited (previously Supponor Limited), Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL	UPC_CFI_214/2023	App_3474/2025	ORD_6926/2025	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Helsinki (FI) Local Division	English	The Court may add a party to the case when the right of defence of defendants, including the new party, are sufficiently guaranteed (R. 305 RoP). When considering the leave to amend the case or to change the claims (R. 263 RoP) the risk of irreconcilable and inconsistent decisions from different courts favours allowing the changes but at the same time protecting the frontloaded procedure of the UPC and the rights of the defendants to defend themselves must be the leading principles. The amendments to the case must be explained in R. 263 RoP application but can be detailed in an appendix.	Change in parties, Leave to change claim or amend case	EN
10/02/2025	Dolby International v. ASUS	UPC_CFI_456/2023	App_67764/2024	ORD_68550/2024	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
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	Bsn Medical Gmbh v. Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.	UPC_CFI_599/2024	App_3915/2025	ORD_5204/2025	Application Rop 365	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German		R. 365 RoP, Bestätigung Vergleich	DE EN
10/02/2025	Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.P.A., Ilme Gmbh Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v. Phoenix Contact Gmbh & Co. Kg	UPC_CFI_342/2024	App_45481/2024	ORD_68781/2024	Preliminary objection	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	1. Die Zuständigkeit des EPG gemäß Art. 32 Abs. 1 a) EPGÜ, Art. 2g), Art. 3c) EPGÜ umfasst Verletzungsklagen auch insoweit, als dass sie auf Benutzungshandlungen gestützt werden, die vor dem Inkrafttreten des EPGÜ und/oder in der Zeit zwischen einem Opt-Out und dem Rücktritt hiervon stattgefunden haben sollen. 2. Zuständigkeit und anwendbares Recht sind voneinander zu trennende Aspekte, die separat voneinander zu beurteilen sind. Weder kann aus der Zuständigkeit des EPG geschlossen werden, dass auf jeden zur Entscheidung gestellten Sachverhalt stets das EPGÜ Anwendung findet, noch ist das anwendbare Recht ausschlaggebend für die Zuständigkeit des EPG.	Zuständigkeit, Einspruch, Inkrafttreten EPGÜ, Anwendbares Recht	DE EN
10/02/2025	Ssab Europe Oy, Ssab Swedish Steel Gmbh v. Tiroler Rohre Gmbh	UPC_CFI_640/2024	ACT_59020/2024	ORD_68941/2024	Application For Costs	Court of First Instance - Munich (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
10/02/2025	Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v. Xsys Prepress N.V., Xsys Germany Gmbh, Xsys Italia S.R.L	UPC_CFI_483/2024	ORD_6847/2025	ORD_6847/2025	Generic Order	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	1. The UPC's jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA, Art. 2(g), Art. 3(c) UPCA also covers infringement actions to the extent that they are based on acts of use which are alleged to have taken place before the UPCA entered into force and/or in the period between an opt-out and the withdrawal thereof. 2. Jurisdiction and applicable law are separate aspects that must be assessed separately. It cannot be concluded from the UPC's jurisdiction that the UPCA always applies to every case to be decided, nor is the applicable law decisive for the UPC's jurisdiction.	Applicable Law, Preliminary Objection, Entry into force UPCA, Jurisdiction, Competence	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	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
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
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	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
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
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

1 ... 27 28 29 ... 57