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
18/12/2024	Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v. Roche Diabetes Care GmbH	UPC_CFI_454/2023	ACT_589997/2023	ORD_598508/2023	Revocation action	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English	The breach of a standstill clause does not divest the breaching party of the right to bring an action where the temporal restriction on the right to sue is not justified by any public interest, but it may only give rise to liability for breach of contract.	competence of the Court.https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/D974AFF2A5CB193E120AC5E390074532_en.pdf	EN
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	EN
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			DE EN
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			EN
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			EN
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			IT EN
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			EN
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			EN
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			EN
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			EN
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	EN
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			DE EN
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	DE EN FR
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			EN
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			DE EN
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			EN
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			DE EN
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			EN
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	DE EN
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.	DE EN
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			EN
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			EN
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			EN
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	EN
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			DE EN

1 ... 29 30 31 ... 53