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

1837 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
27/12/2024	Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited v. Ona Patents SL	UPC_CFI_100/2024	App_41418/2024	ORD_43125/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English		Security for costs, R. 158 RoP	EN
27/12/2024	Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy	UPC_CFI_164/2024	App_61655/2024	ORD_63208/2024	Generic Order	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English	1. Where the Court has already ordered a party to provide security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred or to be incurred by the opposing party, a subsequent request by this latter party for an additional security (compared to that already granted) shall be considered as request to modify the security already granted by increasing its amount.	security for costs	EN
27/12/2024	Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.	UPC_CFI_152/2024	App_47098/2024	ORD_54426/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
26/12/2024	Advanced Bionics AG , Advanced Bionics Sarl v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmb	UPC_CFI_338 /2023 UPC_CFI_410/2023	ACT_576555/2023 ACT_15513/2024	ORD_598503/2023	Revocation action	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English	1.In deference to the need for expeditious judgments and efficient proceedings, the Court may decide the case even by overturning the priority order of the issues to be decided where a determination can be made on the basis of a more easily resolvable reason - albeit logically subordinate - without examining those that are antecedent. 2. Although not a party to the proceedings, the inventor of the patent at suit cannot be examined as a witness or expert because he/she may have a direct interest in the outcome of the case and does not meet the requirements of Rule 181 (1) (a) and (b) ‘RoP’ for impartiality, objectivity and independence.	insufficiency of the disclosure, added matter, lack of inventive step	EN
24/12/2024	Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v. Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH	UPC_CFI_244/2024 UPC_CFI_609/2024	App_67921/2024	ORD_68003/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	1. The second deadline extension was granted as an exception. 2. The plaintiff's representative was instructed to provide further credible evidence of the alleged health impairments on the very day of the extended deadline.	prima facie evidence	DE EN
24/12/2024	Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock	UPC_CFI_213/2023 UPC_CFI_220/2023 UPC_CFI_224/2023	App_67725/2024	ORD_67967/2024	-	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	1. Die Rücknahmeanträge werden zugelassen. 2. Die Verfahren betreffend die Klagen ACT_545562/2023, ACT_545619/2023, ACT_546092/2023 sowie die Widerklagen CC_3294/2024, CC_3276/2024, CC_3300/2024, CC_3301/2024, CC_3304/2024, CC_3308/2024, CC_3274/2024, CC_3297/2024, CC_3305/2024, CC_3450/2024, CC_3458/2024, CC_3469/2024, CC_3452/2024, CC_3457/2024, CC_3470/2024, CC_3459/2024, CC_3465/2024, CC_3460/2024, CC_3455/2024, CC_3299/2024, CC_2861/2024, CC_2879/2024, CC_2870/2024, CC_2874/2024, CC_2860/2024, CC_2867/2024, CC_2895/2024, CC_2863/2024, CC_2877/2024, CC_2871/2024 werden für beendet erklärt. 3. Diese Entscheidung ist in das Register aufzunehmen. 4. Jede Partei trägt ihre Kosten selbst, zwischen den Parteien erfolgt keine Kostenerstattung. 5. Die jeweilige Klagepartei bzw. Widerklagepartei erhält eine anteilige Rückerstattung der Gerichtsgebühren gem. R. 370.9(b)(ii) VerfO von jeweils 40 Prozent. 6. Die Streitwerte der Klagen und Widerklagen werden jeweils auf 4 Mio. € festgesetzt. Die Beklagten haben jeweils eine einheitliche Widerklage eingereicht.	Regel 265 VerfO, Gebührenerstattung, Regel 370.9 VerfO, Klagerücknahme	DE EN
23/12/2024	Insulet Corporation v. A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.	UPC_CFI_380/2024	App_58027/2024	ORD_59988/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section	English	request for payment of costs in intervention proceedings	application to intervene - intervention - intervene - costs	EN
23/12/2024	TIRU v. MAGUIN SAS	UPC_CFI_813/2024	66560/2024	ORD_67655/2024	Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division	French			FR EN
23/12/2024	Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, Memodo GmbH, PowerDeal SRL v. Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH	UPC_CFI_336/2024 UPC_CFI_605/2024	App_57498/2024	ORD_57608/2024	Application RoP262A	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English			EN
23/12/2024	PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico	UPC_CFI_336/2024 UPC_CFI_607/2024	App_59980/2024	ORD_60319/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English		Differentiation between R. 262 RoP and R. 262A RoP, Confidentiality	EN
23/12/2024	Panasonic Holdings v. Guangdong OPPO, OROPE	UPC_CFI_208/2024 UPC_CFI_221/2024 UPC_CFI_225/2024	App_67435/2024	ORD_67681/2024	-	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
23/12/2024	Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy	UPC_CoA_826/2024	APL_67135/2024	ORD_67910/2024	Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English			EN
23/12/2024	Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE	UPC_CFI_52/2023	App_66647/2024	ORD_67711/2024	-	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
23/12/2024	Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation	UPC_CoA_826/2024	App_67329/2024	ORD_67915/2024	Application RoP262A	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English			EN
23/12/2024	TIRU v. VALINEA ENERGIE	UPC_CFI_814/2024	66573/2024	ORD_ 67654/2024	Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division	French			FR EN
20/12/2024	pharma-aktiva GmbH, Hofer Kommanditgesellschaft, ALDI Nord Deutschland Stiftung & Co. KG, ALDI SE & Co. KG, ALDI SÜD Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. oHG v. G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG	UPC_CFI_541/2024	-	ORD_67522/2024	Generic Order	Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
20/12/2024	HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG v. PHOENIX CONTACT, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico ILME	UPC_CFI_342/2024	App_56734/2024	ORD_57040/2024	Application RoP262.1 (b)	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE EN
20/12/2024	Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.	UPC_CoA_405/2024	APL_40553/2024	ORD_60221/2024	Appeal RoP220.1	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English	1. A linguistic error, a spelling mistake or any other inaccuracy in a patent claim can only be corrected by way of interpretation of the patent claim if the existence of an error and the precise way to correct it are sufficiently certain to the average skilled person on the basis of the patent claim, taking into account the description and the drawings and using common general knowledge. 2. The patent claim must be interpreted from the perspective of the person skilled in the art. The applicant’s assertions during the grant proceedings, and in particular the TBA’s endorsement thereof, can be seen as an indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date.	Relevance of the applicant’s assertions and the TBA’s endorsement thereof during grant proceedings for the interpretation of patent claims, Error in a patent claim, Appeal, Patent claim interpretation, Provisional measures	EN
20/12/2024	Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.	UPC_CoA_402/2024	APL_40470/2024	ORD_60219/2024	Appeal RoP220.1	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English	1. A linguistic error, a spelling mistake or any other inaccuracy in a patent claim can only be corrected by way of interpretation of the patent claim if the existence of an error and the precise way to correct it are sufficiently certain to the average skilled person on the basis of the patent claim, taking into account the description and the drawings and using common general knowledge. 2. The patent claim must be interpreted from the perspective of the person skilled in the art. The applicant’s assertions during the grant proceedings, and in particular the TBA’s endorsement thereof, can be seen as an indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date.	Patent claim interpretation, Appeal, Provisional measures, Error in a patent claim	EN
20/12/2024	10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Vizgen, Inc.	UPC_CFI_22/2023	App_62866/2024	ORD_62955/2024	Application Rop 333	Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division	German	Nach Regel 30.2 VerfO werden weitere Anträge auf Änderung des Patentes nur mit Erlaubnis des Gerichts zugelassen. Eine Zulassung scheidet aus, wenn zwischen dem behaupteten Grund für die Antragsänderung und der Einreichung des Antrags ungefähr drei Monate liegen. Auf die Sichtweise des Patentinhabers kommt es bei der Beurteilung der Frage einer möglichen Verfahrensverzögerung nicht an.	weiterer Antrag auf Änderung des Patents, R 30.2 VerfO	DE EN
20/12/2024	Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.	UPC_CFI_501/2023	ACT_597277/2023	ORD_598551/2023	Infringement Action	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	1. Orders following the interim conference. 2. Request for amendment of infringement action and counterclaim for Romania successful. 3. Application to amend the infringement action as regards details of information to be provided successful.	Romania, Rule 263 RoP, Rule 105.5 RoP	EN
19/12/2024	HGSystem ApS, Rune Eilertsen, Infotech Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS v. Hybridgenerator	UPC _CFl_492/2024	App_54055/2024	ORD_59378/2024	Request to review an order ex-parte	Court of First Instance - Copenhagen (DK) Local Division	Danish			DK EN
19/12/2024	LAMA France v. HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P	UPC_CFI_358/2023	App_66323/2024	ORD_66525/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division	French			FR EN
19/12/2024	Sumi Agro Europe Limited v. Syngenta Limited	UPC_CoA_523/2024	APL_51115/2024	ORD_56404/2024	Procedural Order	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	English	- A party has submitted new evidence in the appeal proceedings. In view of the fact that the party had submitted other pages from the same publication in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal considers that the party has not justified that additional pages from the same publication could not reasonably have been made during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. The evidence will thus be disregarded by the Court of Appeal. - Evidence relating to a possible new version of a contested embodiment, following statements made by the alleged infringer that a product ingredient has been changed, will be regarded in view of explanations on when and why samples of the product were purchased and analysed.	New evidence, R.222.2 RoP	EN
19/12/2024	Amycel LLC v. ***	UPC_CFI_499/2024	App_ 65966/2024	ORD_66938/2024	Procedural Order	Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division	English	Request service	service, request/application, judge rapporteur	EN

1 ... 49 50 51 ... 74