|
31/07/2024 |
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v. STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH |
UPC_CFI_33/2024 |
ORD_37208/2024 |
ORD_37208/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Vienna (AT) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
31/07/2024 |
Amycel LLC v. Spyra Szymon Spyra |
UPC_CFI_195/2024 |
|
ORD_44133/2024 |
Application for provisional measures |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
31/07/2024 |
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc., Dexcom International Limited, Dexcom France SAS |
UPC_CFI_425/2023 |
App_36267/2024 |
ORD_36398/2024 |
Order Communicate Information |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
English |
|
1. The request for disclosure of information on the basis of R.191 RoP may be admissible in ongoing proceedings and even before the existence of an infringement has been decided, should this be necessary for the investigation of the case at that stage of the proceedings. 2. The Court points out that a request for information under R.191 RoP must be sufficiently justified and proportionate in order to be granted. 3. The Court considers that the request under R.191 RoP is not sufficiently justified as the applicant fails to demonstrate that the requested information is reasonably necessary for the purpose of advancing that party’s case in accordance with Art. 67(1) UPCA and R. 191 RoP. |
Art. 67 UPCA, R.191 RoP |
|
|
30/07/2024 |
BEGO Medical GmbH v. CEAD USA B.V., CEAD B.V. |
UPC_CFI_367/2023 |
App_37662/2024 |
ORD_39244/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
German |
|
|
R 262A, R 262 (2 |
|
|
30/07/2024 |
Dolby International AB v. Hewlett-Packard, HP |
UPC_CFI_457/2023 |
ORD_42107/2024 |
ORD_42107/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Sofern vom Gericht nichts anderes angeordnet wurde, wird der Streithelfer gemäß R. 315.4 VerfO als Partei behandelt. Ebenso wie einer Partei steht ihm daher die Möglichkeit offen, hinsichtlich der in den durch ihn eingereichten Schriftsätzen enthaltenen Informationen einen Antrag auf Schutz vertraulicher Informationen (R. 262A VerfO) zu stellen. |
Parteien, Streithelfer, Geheimnisschutz, Zugangsbeschränkung |
|
|
30/07/2024 |
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. |
UPC_CoA_405/2024 |
App_43889/2024 |
ORD_44368/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
30/07/2024 |
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. |
UPC_CoA_402/2024 |
App_43817/2024 |
ORD_44363/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
29/07/2024 |
Powell Gilbert LLP |
UPC_CFI_131/2024 |
App_39789/2024 |
ORD_39938/2024 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
English |
|
Public access to the register granted (R. 262.1 RoP). Application of criteria set forth in Ocado v AutoStore (ORD_19369/2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023). |
leave to appeal, public access to the register |
|
|
29/07/2024 |
BITZER Electronics A/S v. Carrier Corporation |
UPC_CFI_263/2023 |
ACT_555899/2023 |
ORD_598395/2023 |
Revocation Action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
29/07/2024 |
NEC Corporation v. TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd. |
UPC_CoA_69/2024 |
APL_8972/2024 |
- |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
A defendant company in China or Hong Kong cannot be served a Statement of claim by email to a person who is not authorised to accept service. Neither can such service be made by public service in the form of a written notice to be displayed in the publicly accessible premises of a UPC Local Division at this stage. 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 by other means (R.274.1(b) RoP) or by alternative methods or at an alternative place (R.275 RoP) is permitted. |
Service, Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, the Hague Convention, Service outside the Contracting Member States |
|
|
29/07/2024 |
NEC Corporation v. TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd. |
UPC_CoA_70/2024 |
APL_8977/2024 |
- |
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
29/07/2024 |
Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd |
UPC_CoA_1/2024 |
App_36394/2024 |
ORD_38645/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
29/07/2024 |
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A. |
UPC_CFI_14/2023 |
ORD_43914/2024 |
ORD_43914/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
The infringement proceedings are stayed pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation decision. |
stay of proceedings, Rule 37.4 RoP, Rule 295(m) RoP |
|
|
26/07/2024 |
Valeo Electrification v. Magna |
UPC_CFI_347/2024 |
App_42088/2024 |
ORD_42132/2024 |
Amend Document |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. The scope of R. 263 RoP is not limited to the main proceedings. It also applies to applications for provisional measures. The applicant may also apply for leave to change its claim or to amend its case. 2. If the applicant adds a feature to its claims which was previously only “alternatively” claimed, this narrows the scope of a possible preliminary injunction or other preliminary measures. Embodiments which satisfy all the other features but not the now added feature are no longer covered by a possible preliminary injunction. This is therefore a limitation of the claim. If this limitation is unconditional, R. 263.3 RoP applies. |
unconditionally limitation, Leave to change claim, scope of R. 263 RoP, application for provisional measures, limitation of a claim, features alternatively |
|
|
26/07/2024 |
Jef Nelissen v. Vivisol B BV, OrthoApnea S.L. |
UPC_430/2024 |
App_42818/2024 |
ORD_43804/2024 |
Application Rop 223 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
Dutch |
|
|
|
|
|
26/07/2024 |
Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, ARM Limited, Arm France SAS, SVF Holdco, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited v. ICPillar LLC |
UPC_CoA_301/2024 |
App_33764/2024 |
ORD_43826/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
26/07/2024 |
Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, ARM Limited, Arm France SAS, SVF Holdco, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited v. ICPillar LLC |
UPC_CoA_301/2024 |
App_33764/2024 |
ORD_36755/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
26/07/2024 |
CANÈ S.p.A. v. FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE |
UPC_CFI_419/2023 |
ORD_43695/2024 |
ORD_43695/2024 |
Generic order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
French |
|
|
|
|
|
26/07/2024 |
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. |
UPC_CoA_382/2024 |
App_43560/2024 |
ORD_43746/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
25/07/2024 |
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v. Roche Diabetes Care GmbH |
UPC_CFI_88/2024 |
App_36130/2024 |
ORD_36444/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
When deciding on a request to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent was granted, all relevant circumstances relating to the case and to the position of the parties shall be taken into account. If the outcome of balancing of interests is equal – here both parties being international companies operating worldwide – the position of the defendant is the decisive factor. |
Change of the language of the proceedings , R. 323 RoP |
|
|
25/07/2024 |
Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH |
UPC_CFI_169/2024 |
App_42733/2024 |
ORD_43090/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. The fact that coordination with suppliers based outside Europe, whose components are at the heart of the infringement allegation, is necessary, regularily does not constitute a convincing reason for an exceptional extension of a time limit. 2. Restrictive confidentiality obligations, which are imposed on a defendant, do typically not justify an extension as the RoP do provide especially for that purpose a possibility for the protection of confidential information in R. 262A RoP |
Extension of Time limits, R. 9.3, R. 23, R. 271.6 (b) |
|
|
25/07/2024 |
WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH |
UPC_CFI_159/2024 |
App_42970/2024 |
ORD_43151/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
submission of a physical exhibit under the current CMS |
physical exhibit |
|
|
24/07/2024 |
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. Laser Components SAS |
UPC_CFI_440/2023 |
ORD_41423/2024 |
ORD_41423/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
French |
|
1. Dans le cadre de l'article 33 (4) AJUB, les parties au litige doivent être les mêmes dans les deux instances, peu importe leurs positions procédurales, le demandeur peut être défendeur dans la seconde et vice-versa et ce, dans le but d’éviter que plusieurs divisions soient saisies de la question de la validité du même brevet par les mêmes parties, dans un but d’efficacité, d’économie des moyens et pour éviter le risque de décisions irréconciliables au sein de la JUB. 2. La Cour relève aussi que tant l’article 33.4 de l’UPCA [AJUB] que la règle 118.2 du RdP sont des règles spéciales et autonomes spécifiques à la compétence interne au sein des divisions de la JUB. Pourtant, il est pertinent pour interpréter la notion de « mêmes parties » de raisonner par analogie avec les règles de compétence entre les différentes juridictions au sein de l’UE en matière de « lis pendens » (Règlements de Bruxelles I). 3. En outre, la Cour, plus généralement quand elle statue sur une demande de sursis (règle 295 (g) et (m) RdP), doit prendre en compte, au vu du principe directeur d’efficacité du règlement de procédure de la JUB (préambule point 7), l’état de la procédure respective au sein des deux divisions concernées pour décider s’il est opportun d’attendre la décision de la Division Centrale de Paris sur la question de la compétence. |
compétence interne au sein des divisions de la JUB, Intervention, compétence interne au sein des divisions de la JUB, R. 118.2 RdP, R. 118.2 RdP, Intervention, Identité des parties |
|
|
23/07/2024 |
Himson Engineering Private Limited v. Oerlikon textiles GmbH & Co KG |
UPC_CFI_240/2023 |
App_28655/2024 |
ORD_28787/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
Italian |
|
|
|
|
|
23/07/2024 |
Oerlikon textiles GmbH & Co KG v. Himson Engineering Private Limited |
UPC_CFI_240/2023 |
ORD_40568/2024 |
ORD_40568/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
Italian |
|
|
|
|
DE
EN
NL
FR
IT