|
23/08/2024 |
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V., ASUSTek Computer Inc. |
UPC_CFI_317/2024 |
App_48229/2024 |
ORD_48428/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Lisbon (PT) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
22/08/2024 |
Mathys & Squire LLP v. Astellas v. Helios, Riken, Osaka |
UPC_CFI_75/2023 |
App_588681/2023 |
ORD_591107/2023 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
In weighing the interests of the applicant against the interests mentioned in Art. 45 UPCA, once the proceedings have come to an end, as in the present case by way of settlement, the integrity of proceedings is no longer at stake and the balance of interests will normally be in favour of granting access to written pleadings and evidence pursuant to Rule 262.1(b) RoP, subject to the redaction of personal data and the redaction of confidential information pursuant to Rule 262.2 RoP. |
Article 10, 45 UPCA, Rule 262.1(b), 262.2 RoP. Public access to written pleadings and evi-dence. Confidentiality request. Redaction of confidential information. Redaction of personal data. |
|
|
21/08/2024 |
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v. DISH Technologies, Sling TV L.L.C |
UPC_CoA_469/2024 |
APL_45142/2024 |
ORD_45793/2024 |
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2024 |
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd. |
UPC_CoA_354/2024 |
App_47290/2024 |
ORD_48026/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2024 |
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v. DISH Technologies, Sling TV L.L.C |
UPC_CoA_469/2024 |
App_47039/2024 |
ORD_48195/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2024 |
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v. LAMA France |
UPC_CFI_358/2023 |
ORD_47694/2024 |
ORD_47694/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
French |
|
Il ressort de R 12 RdP que le règlement de procédure a divisé la procédure écrite en plusieurs étapes successives : une étape 1 ou flux 1 (« workflow » 1 en anglais) relative à la demande en contrefaçon elle-même comprenant un jeu de 4 écritures, puis, un flux 2 d’écritures dédié à la validité du brevet en cas de demande reconventionnelle en nullité du brevet en cause, et enfin, un flux 3 particulièrement dédié à la modification du brevet en cause si elle est demandée. Afin que les principes de flexibilité et de souplesse ainsi que le principe général de justice et d’équité prévus au point 2 du préambule soient respectés, R 36 RdP permet aux parties de demander des écritures supplémentaires au juge rapporteur sur demande motivée. R. 29 (e) indique expressément que le : « mémoire en duplique au mémoire en réplique au mémoire en défense se limite à une réponse aux questions soulevées dans le mémoire en réplique au mémoire en défense ». Les développements contenus dans les mémoires respectifs des parties ne traitant pas du sujet concerné par le flux qui lui est dédié sont considérés en l’espèce comme inadmissibles et mis hors des débats. |
R. 12 RdP, R. 29 (e) RdP, R. 32 (3) RdP, Étapes de la procédure écrite (flux), Échanges de mémoires, Inadmissibilité |
|
|
21/08/2024 |
Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy |
UPC_CoA_454/2024 |
APL_44552/2024 |
ORD_45292/2024 |
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2024 |
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v. Valeo Electrification |
UPC_CFI_347/2024 |
App_46219/2024 |
ORD_46902/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
other proceedings, Confidentiality, PI proceedings, R. 262A RoP |
|
|
21/08/2024 |
Ballinno v. KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA |
UPC-CFI 230/2024 |
App_43845/2024 |
ORD_43896/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
An appeal against the denial of provisional measures does generally not justify a stay of revocation proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(m) RoP. Rule 295(m) RoP must be applied and interpreted in accordance with the principle according to which proceedings must be conducted in a way which will normally allow the final oral hearing at first instance to take place within one year. |
Rule 295(m) |
|
|
20/08/2024 |
SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, SORMEDICA, UAB, MERIL GMBH, INTERLUX, UAB |
UPC_CFI_380/2023 |
App_14061/2024 |
ORD_14940/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
20/08/2024 |
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, INTERLUX, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB |
UPC_CFI_380/2023 |
App_14299/2024 |
ORD_16663/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
19/08/2024 |
Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. |
UPC_CoA_388/2024 |
ORD_47551/2024 |
ORD_47551/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
16/08/2024 |
Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson |
UPC_CFI_317/2024 |
ORD_46326/2024 |
ORD_46326/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Lisbon (PT) Local Division |
English |
|
1. R. 13.1(h) RoP requires the indication of the actions before other courts or authorities related to the patent for the Court to assess their relevance within the UPC proceedings. 2. The examination to be made by the Registry according to R. 16.2 and 13.1(h) RoP is formal: whether any information at all has been provided. The Registry has no obligation to verify that the information provided is correct. 3. R. 13.1(h) RoP does not provide legal support for requesting that the Applicant submits to the proceedings copies of all prior art relied on in all of the related proceedings, together with pleadings, statements of case, and expert reports from such proceedings. |
Compliance, R. 13.1(h) RoP |
|
|
16/08/2024 |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, Smis, Sormedica |
UPC_CFI_8/2023 |
App_43606/2024 |
ORD_44404/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
13/08/2024 |
Network System Technologies v. Texas Instruments, Volkswagen, AUDI |
UPC_CFI_513/2023 |
App_39047/2024 |
ORD_39075/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Rule 265 RoP also applies if the action is not withdrawn in its entirety, but only in relation to some of several defendants (partial subjective withdrawal of action). |
Withdrawal of action |
|
|
12/08/2024 |
DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi v. SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme & STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions |
UPC_CFI_33/2024 |
App_36807/2024 |
ORD_39223/2024 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - Vienna (AT) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
12/08/2024 |
Seoul Semiconductor v. Amazon Services Europe |
UPC_CFI_281/2024 |
App_44885/2024 |
ORD_45092/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Die Rücknahme der Klage wird zugelassen. |
Zulassung, Rücknahme der Klage, Rückzahlung Gerichtsgebühren, Beendigung Verfahren |
|
|
09/08/2024 |
AGFA NV vs. Gucci |
UPC_CFI_278/2023 |
App_39127/2024 |
ORD_39257/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
09/08/2024 |
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd |
UPC_CFI_122/2024 |
App_39077/2024 |
ORD_39433/2024 |
Revocation Action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
Rule 265 |
Withdrawal |
|
|
08/08/2024 |
Alexion v. Amgen |
UPC_CoA_405/2024 |
App_44530/2024 |
ORD_44709/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
08/08/2024 |
Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc. |
UPC_CFI_140/2024 |
App_41690/2024 |
ORD_42284/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
confidentiality club, summary proceedings, proceedings on the merits, confidentiality order, access of representatives |
|
|
06/08/2024 |
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College |
UPC_CoA_335/2024 |
App_22399/2024 |
ORD_27444/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
06/08/2024 |
Nera Innovations Ltd. v. Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH |
UPC_CoA_205/2024 |
APL_24585/2024 |
ORD_34253/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
Einer beklagten Gesellschaft in China kann eine Klageschrift nicht ohne weiteres über eine Gesellschaft desselben Konzerns in einem Vertragsmitgliedstaat zugestellt werden. Eine solche Konzerngesellschaft kann weder zwangsläufig als satzungsmäßiger Sitz, Hauptverwaltung oder Hauptniederlassung einer beklagten Gesellschaft in China angesehen werden, noch als Ort, an dem die beklagte Gesellschaft einen dauerhaften oder vorübergehenden Geschäftssitz hat. Zustellungsversuche in China nach dem Haager Zustellungsübereinkommen gemäß R.274.1(a)(ii) VerfO müssen in der Regel erfolgen, bevor die Zustellung nach dem Recht des Staates, in dem die Zustellung erfolgen soll (R.274.1(b) VerfO) oder durch alternative Verfahren oder an einem alternativen Ort (R.275 VerfO) zulässig ist. |
Zustellung, Verordnung (EU) 2020/1784, Haager Zustellungsübereinkommen, Zustellung außerhalb der Vertragsmitgliedstaaten |
|
|
06/08/2024 |
Daedalus Prime LLC v. Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH |
UPC_CoA_183/2024 |
APL_21602/2024 |
ORD_34252/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
- A defendant company in China or Taiwan cannot, as a starting point, be served a Statement of claim via a company within the same group in a Contracting Member State. Such a group company cannot automatically be seen as a statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business of a defendant company in China or Taiwan, nor a place where such defendant has a permanent or temporary place of business. - Attempts to serve in China by any method provided for by the Hague Convention pursuant to R.274.1(a)(ii) RoP shall normally be made before service permitted by the law of the state where service is to be effected (R.274.1(b) RoP) or by alternative methods or at an alternative place (R.275 RoP) is permitted. Similarly, attempts to serve in Taiwan by diplomatic or consular channels pursuant to R.274.1(a)(iii) shall be made. |
Service, Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, the Hague Convention, Service outside the Contracting Member States |
|
|
06/08/2024 |
Motorola Mobility v. Ericsson, Ericsson GmbH |
UPC_CFI_42/2024 |
App_25265/2024 |
ORD_27411/2024 |
Amend Document |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
The conditions set out in Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure for granting leave to amend are not met. The application must therefore be rejected. |
Rule 263 RoP |
|
EN
DE
FR