|
08/05/2024 |
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments v. Network System Technologies |
UPC_CFI_513/2023 |
App_11787/2024 |
ORD_26316/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
08/05/2024 |
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments v. Network System Technologies |
UPC_CFI_515/2023 |
App_12111/2024 |
ORD_12495/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
08/05/2024 |
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments v. Network System Technologies |
UPC_CFI_515/2023 |
App_12104/2024 |
ORD_12494/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
08/05/2024 |
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments v. Network System Technologies |
UPC_CFI_515/2023 |
App_11861/2024 |
ORD_26350/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
08/05/2024 |
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments v. Network System Technologies |
UPC_CFI_515/2023 |
App_11795/2024 |
ORD_26347/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
08/05/2024 |
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments v. Network System Technologies |
UPC_CFI_515/2023 |
App_11863/2024 |
ORD_26353/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
08/05/2024 |
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments v. Network System Technologies |
UPC_CFI_514/2023 |
App_11791/2024 |
ORD_26332/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
08/05/2024 |
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. Netgear |
UPC_CFI_9/2023 |
App_22295/2024 |
ORD_22952/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
06/05/2024 |
Bhagat Textile Engineers v. Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG |
UPC_CFI_223/2025 |
App_21554/2024 |
ORD_23384/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
Italian |
|
|
|
|
|
06/05/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_223/2023 |
ORD_25608/2024 |
ORD_25614/2024 |
Rule 264 Order |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
06/05/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_223/2023 |
ORD_25608/2024 |
ORD_25608/2024 |
Rule 264 Order |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
06/05/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_218/2023 |
ORD_25617/2024 |
ORD_25617/2024 |
Rule 264 Order |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
06/05/2024 |
Photon Wave, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components |
UPC_CFI_440/2023 |
ACT_588685/2023 |
ORD_18404/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
French |
|
|
|
|
|
02/05/2024 |
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v. AWM, Schnell |
UPC_CoA_177/2024 |
App_20143/2024 |
APL_20002/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
02/05/2024 |
Nokia Technology GmbH v. Mala Technologies Ltd. |
UPC_CFI-484/2023 |
App_8708/2024 |
ORD_13023/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
lis pendens, Art 29-31 Brussels I Reg recast |
|
|
01/05/2024 |
Keestrack N.V. v. Geha Laverman B.V. |
UPC_CFI_379/2023 |
App_12133/2024 |
ACT_ 581723/2023 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
Dutch |
|
Beslissing tot beëindiging van de inbreukprocedure na intrekkingsverzoek van eiser. Restitutie bevel. R.265.2 en R. 370.9 en 11 RoP |
R.265 en R.370.9 en 11 RoP |
|
|
01/05/2024 |
Daedalus Prime LLC vs. Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. |
UPC_CoA_183/2024 |
App_23543/2024 |
ORD_24731/2024 |
|
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
30/04/2024 |
Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc. |
UPC_CFI_463/2023 |
ORD_23580/2024 |
ORD_23580/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. If in the case of a European patent a person is registered as the patent proprietor in the respective national register, there is a rebuttable presumption that the person recorded in the respective national register is entitled to be registered (R. 8.5(c) RoP). The result of such a legal presumption is to reverse the burden of explanation and proof with regard to the presumed fact. If the Applicant can refer to his listing in the registers relevant to the respective dispute, it is up to the Defendant's side to set out and, if necessary, prove that the Applicant is not entitled to be registered. 2. If a patent claim contains stated purposes, these usually serve to improve understanding of the invention. As a rule, they have the indirect effect of defining the subject matter protected by the patent in such a way that it must not only fulfil the spatial-physical features, but must also be designed to be usable for the purpose stated in the patent claim. 3. If the Applicant lacks positive knowledge of an infringement of property rights, grossly negligent ignorance or wilful blindness to an infringement of intellectual property rights is considered equivalent to such knowledge. The patent proprietor is not under a general obligation to observe the market. However, as soon as the holder of a property right becomes aware of specific circumstances that suggest an infringement of his property right, he is expected to take all measures readily available to him and to further clarify the circumstances. It is up to the Defendant to explain such circumstances triggering a duty to provide information. 4. While Art. 69(4) EPC only provides for the provision of security for costs by the claimant, R. 158 RoP extends the group of addressees of such an Order to include "the Parties" and thus also the Defendant in the main action. In urgent proceedings, there is neither scope nor (with regard to R. 211.1(d) RoP) a need for the (analogous) application of the provision, given the urgent nature of such proceedings. |
stated purpose, security for costs, urgency, knowledge of infringement, Right to bring an action, negligent ignorance, weigh-up of interests, presumption, register |
|
|
30/04/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_223/2023 |
App_14308/2024 |
ORD_14603/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
30/04/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_218/2023 |
App_14035/2024 |
ORD_14581/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
30/04/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_219/2023 |
App_14390/2024 |
ORD_14600/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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
DE
IT
FR
NL