Moteur de recherchedans les décisionsde 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

728 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
30/04/2024	Carrier Corporation v. BITZER Electronics A/S	UPC_CFI_263/2023	App_20743/2024	ORD_24607/2024	Application to review a case management Order (RoP333) into a Revocation Action	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English	The request to amend a patent must refer to claims that have been challenged and, therefore, it is inadmissible to the extent that it concerns unchallenged claims.	Request to amend the patent; unchallenged claims	EN
30/04/2024	Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Italy srl	UPC_CFI_255/2023	App_19959/2024 and 23242/2024	ORD_24620/2024	Generic Procedural Application into a Revocation Action	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English	The Court has the discretionary powers to admit an amend of the patent even after a previous application to amend that patent has been submitted and after the closing of the written procedure; however, the admission of this subsequent request must not prejudice the other party’s right to defence.	subsequent request to amend the patent; permission of the Court; closing of the written procedure; additional defence	EN
29/04/2024	10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience		App_22293/2024	ORD_23544/2024	Application for provisional measures	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English	1. Ist eine Person bei einem Europäischen Patent im jeweiligen nationalen Register als Patentinhaber eingetragen, besteht eine widerlegbare Vermutung dafür, dass die im jeweiligen nationalen Register eingetragene Person zur Eintragung berechtigt ist (R. 8.5 (c) VerfO). Eine solche gesetzliche Vermutung hat hinsichtlich der vermuteten Tatsache eine Umkehr der Darlegungs- und Beweislast zur Folge. Kann der Antragsteller auf seine Eintragung in den für den jeweiligen Rechtsstreit maßgeblichen Registern verweisen, ist es an der Antragsgegnerseite, darzulegen und gegebenenfalls zu beweisen, dass dem Antragsteller die Berechtigung für eine solche Eintragung fehlt. 2. Enthält ein Patentanspruch Zweckangaben, dienen diese üblicherweise dem besseren Verständnis der Erfindung. Sie haben im Regelfall mittelbar die Wirkung, den durch das Patent geschützten Gegenstand dahingehend zu definieren, dass er nicht nur die räumlich-körperlichen Merkmale erfüllen, sondern auch ausgebildet sein muss, um für den im Patentanspruch angegebenen Zweck verwendbar zu sein. 3. Fehlt es an einer positiven Kenntnis des Antragstellers von einer Schutzrechtsverletzung, steht einer solchen Kenntnis eine grob fahrlässige Unkenntnis oder das bewusste Verschließen der Augen vor einer Schutzrechtsverletzung gleich. Eine allgemeine Marktbeobachtungspflicht des Patentinhabers besteht nicht. Sobald der Schutzrechtsinhaber jedoch konkrete Umstände kennt, die eine Verletzung seines Schutzrechts naheliegend erscheinen lassen, ist von ihm zu erwarten, dass er alle ihm ohne Weiteres zur Verfügung stehenden Maßnahmen ergreift und die Sachlage weiter aufklärt. Die Darlegung derartiger, eine Aufklärungspflicht auslösender Umstände obliegt der Antragsgegnerseite. 4. Während Art. 69 Abs. 4 EPÜ lediglich die Leistung einer Prozesskostensicherheit des Klägers vorsieht, erweitert R. 158 VerfO den Kreis der Adressaten einer solchen Anordnung auf „die Parteien“ und damit auch den Beklagten. In Eilverfahren besteht für eine (analoge) Anwendung der Norm vor dem Hintergrund des Eilcharakters derartiger Verfahren weder Raum noch im Hinblick auf R. 211.1 (d) VerfO ein Bedürfnis.	Eilbedürftigkeit, Zweckangaben, Aktivlegitimation, fahrlässige Unkenntnis, Vermutung, Register, Prozesskostensicherheit, Kenntnis der Verletzung, Interessenabwägung	EN
26/04/2024	AIM Sport Vision AG v. Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited		ORD_23089/2024	ORD_23089/2024	Generic Order	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English	An ambiguity arising when reading Article 62 UPCA and Rules 220.1(c) and 224.1(b) RoP together, in combination with incorrect, or at least incomplete, information provided by the Court of First Instance, has led the appellant to believe that a two months’ time period applied for an appeal of an order. The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations requires that the appellant under the exceptional circumstances of this case is allowed to rely on the information provided by the Court of First Instance that the applicable time period for lodging the Statement of appeal was two months, when in fact it was 15 days.	Time period for lodging a Statement of appeal pursuant to R.220.1(c) RoP in conjunction with Art. 62 UPCA	EN
25/04/2024	Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v. Toyota Motor Europe	UPC_CFI_361/2023	App_18259/2024	ORD_18484/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English			EN
24/04/2024	Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.	UPC_CFI_9/2023	App_9728/2024	ORD_18179/2024	Procedural Order	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
24/04/2024	Nicoventures Trading Limited v. NJOY Netherlands B.V and Juul Labs International Inc.	UPC_CFI_316/2023	App_587265/2023	ORD_587436/2023	Application RoP262.1(b) into a Revocation Action	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English			EN
23/04/2024	Volkswagen AG	UPC_CFI_513/2023	App_11434/2024	ORD_12227/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	Request for security for legal costs by defendant.	security, Art. 69.4, legal costs	EN
23/04/2024	Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated	UPC_CFI_515/2023	App_11835/2024	ORD_12476/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	Request for security for legal costs by defendant.	security, Art. 69.4, legal costs	EN
23/04/2024	Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH	UPC_CFI_515/2023	App_11732/2024	ORD_12488/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	Request for security for legal costs by defendant.	security, Art. 69.4, legal costs	EN
23/04/2024	AUDI AG, Volkswagen AG	UPC_CFI_514/2023	App_11434/2024	ORD_12227/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	Request for security for legal costs by defendant.	security, Art. 69.4, legal costs	EN
23/04/2024	Volkswagen AG	UPC_CFI_514/2023	App_11454/2024	ORD_12491/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	Request for security for legal costs by defendant.	security, Art. 69.4, legal costs	EN
23/04/2024	Volkswagen AG	UPC_CFI_515/2023	App_11454/2024	ORD_12491/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	Request for security for legal costs by defendant.	security, Art. 69.4, legal costs	EN
23/04/2024	AUDI AG	UPC_CFI_515/2023	App_11456/2024	ORD_17417/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	Request for security for legal costs by defendant.	security, Art. 69.4, legal costs	EN
23/04/2024	AUDI AG	UPC_CFI_515/2023	App_11453/2024	ORD_12232/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	Request for security for legal costs by defendant.	security, Art. 69.4, legal costs	EN
23/04/2024	Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.		ORD_22211/2024	ORD_22211/2024	Generic Order	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	German	1. As Germany has issued an indication within the meaning of Rule 14.2 (c) RoP, the judge-rapporteur may, in the interest of the panel, issue an order to the effect that the judges may, inter alia, issue and deliver any decision and order in German together with a certified translation into English within the meaning of Rule 118.8 RoP. 2. If the language of the proceedings is changed to English after the oral hearing and immediately before the final order is issued, the judge-rapporteur may make use of this possibility in order to ensure that the Application for provisional measures can be decided immediately.	Application for provisional measures, language change, language of the proceedings, indication; Rule 14.2 (c) RoP, certified translation	DE
22/04/2024	Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH		ORD_5343/2024	ORD_5343/2024	Generic Order	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	German	1. Hat eine Nichtigkeitswiderklage Erfolg, wird das Streitpatent rückwirkend für nichtig erklärt. Dadurch verliert auch ein einfacher Lizenznehmer seine Vorzugsstellung gegenüber Nicht-Lizenznehmern. Er kann daher dem Rechtsstreit auf Klägerseite beitreten und versuchen, eine solche Nichtigerklärung zu verhindern. 2. Hat sich eine Lokalkammer dazu entschieden, sowohl über die Verletzungsklage als auch über die Nichtigkeitswiderklage zu verhandeln, entscheidet sie auf der Grundlage einer einheitlichen Auslegung sowohl über die Verletzungsfrage als auch über den Rechtsbestand. In einer solchen Konstellation kann der Lizenznehmer nicht nur isoliert der Nichtigkeitswiderklage, sondern dem gesamten Rechtsstreit beitreten.	Zulässigkeit der Streithilfe, rechtliches Interesse, einfache Lizenz, einfacher Lizenznehmer, Verletzungsklage, isolierter Beitritt, Streithilfe, Lizenznehmer, Nichtigkeitswiderklage	DE
18/04/2024	Daedalus Prime LLC v. Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.		ORD_20986/2024	ORD_20986/2024	Generic Order	Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division	English			EN
17/04/2024	Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.		APL_12116/2024	ORD_18194/2024	Appeal RoP220.1	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	German			DE EN
15/04/2024	Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics Sarl		App_12139/2024	ORD_13321/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division	English	1-An application according to Art. 49 (5) UPCA and Rule 323.1 RoP can be made at any time until the Statement of Defence has to be lodged according to Rule 23 RoP. Should the different options offered by the RoP be provided with the purpose to reach an agreement on the language to be used before forwarding the request to the President of the CFI, this interpretation is not in contradiction with such aim as within the time-limit laid down in the RoP to lodge the Statement of Defence, it remains possible to file a procedural application pursuant R. 321 or 322 RoP and later on refer to R. 323. – 2. The decision whether or not to change the language of the proceedings into the language in which the patent was granted shall be determined with regard to the respective interests at stake, a fairness issue can occur if one party compared to the other(s), is remarkably disadvantaged by the conditions in which it has to organize its defence due to the language of the proceedings, strategical choices relating to the constitution of the team, although influencing the general management of the cases, is not obviously affecting the conditions under which the defence is exercised.	language of the proceedings – admissibility and merits of the Application.	EN
15/04/2024	Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v. Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH		ORD_18121/2024	ORD_18121/2024	Generic Order	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	German			DE
11/04/2024	SVF Holdco v. ICPillar LLC		App_12563/2024	ORD_18817/2024	Preliminary objection	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division	English			EN
11/04/2024	Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v. VitalAire GmbH, Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V, Dinno Santé s.a.i.	UPC_CFI_ 504/2023	App_9705/2024	ORD_13986/2024	Preliminary objection	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	German	(1) Pursuant to Art. 49 (2) UPCA the Contracting States may designate one or more official languages of the European Patent Office as language of proceedings of their local divisions in addition to an official language of the European Union which is an official language of the Contracting State in whose territory the local division Düsseldorf is located (Art. 49 (1) UPCA). The Federal Republic of Germany has made use of this possibility and has authorised English as an official language of the European Patent Office in addition to German as an official language of the European Union. (2) Pursuant to Rule 14.2(a) RP the applicant may choose either of the two languages mentioned as the language of proceedings. (3) Rule 14.2(b)(4) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the proceedings are to be conducted in the official language of the defendant where a provision of the Member State having more than one official language so provides and, where there are two or more defendants with different official languages, the applicant may choose the language from among the official languages concerned. According to the wording of the provision, the official language means the official language of the Contracting State. The Federal Republic of Germany does not provide for any official languages within the meaning of this Rule other than German, in particular English. 4 Pursuant to Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Procedure, a party may also submit a document in paper form to the Registry or to a branch of the Registry which cannot be filed electronically because the electronic case management system of the Court is no longer functioning. For this purpose, the document must be delivered to the premises of the sub-registry or the document must reach the sub-registry by other means within the time limit.	Language of the proceedings, Overnight letter box	DE
11/04/2024	F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v. Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.		App_9340/2024	ORD_13996/2024	Preliminary objection	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	German	1. Pursuant to Art. 49 (2) UPCA the contracting member states may designate one or more official languages of the European Patent Office as language of proceedings of their local divisions in addition to an official language of the European Union which is an official language of the contracting member state in whose territory the local division Düsseldorf is located (Art. 49 (1) UPCA). The Federal Republic of Germany has made use of this possibility and has admitted English as an official language of the European Patent Office in addition to German as an official language of the European Union. 2. Pursuant to Rule 14.2(a) RP the applicant may choose either of the two languages mentioned as the language of proceedings. 3. Rule 14.2(b)(4) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where the law of a Member State with more than one official language so provides, the proceedings are to be conducted in the official language of the defendant and that, where there are two or more defendants with different official languages, the applicant may choose a language from among the official languages concerned. According to the wording of the provision, the official language means the official language of the Contracting State. The Federal Republic of Germany does not provide for any official languages within the meaning of this Rule other than German, in particular English. 4. Pursuant to Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Procedure, a party may also submit a document in paper form to the Registry or to a branch of the Registry which cannot be filed electronically because the electronic case management system of the Court is no longer functioning. For this purpose, the document must be delivered to the premises of the sub-registry or the document must otherwise reach the sub-registry within the time limit.	Overnight letter box, Official language	DE EN
11/04/2024	Neo Wireless v.Toyota Motor Europe		App_17551/2024	ORD_19643/2024	Generic application	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English	If an appeal is lodged under R.220.2 RoP and leave is granted in the impugned order itself, the Statement of appeal must be lodged within 15 days of service of that order containing the decision to grant leave. If the decision to grant leave to appeal is contained in a separate order on a request to that effect (which separate order must be issued within 15 days of the impugned order, cf R.220.3 RoP), the Statement of appeal has to be lodged within 15 days from the date of service of this separate order containing the decision to grant leave to appeal.	Time period for filing a Statement of appeal under R.220.2 RoP	EN

1 ... 28 29 30