|
21/02/2025 |
Hanshow France Sas, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany Gmbh v. VusionGroup SA |
UPC_CoA_618/2024 |
ORD_8874/2025 |
ORD_8874/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
20/02/2025 |
Cretes NV v. Hyler BV |
UPC_CFI_216/2024_UPC_CFI_556/2024 |
App_6987/2025 |
ORD_7825/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division |
Dutch |
|
|
|
|
|
20/02/2025 |
Bhagat Textile Engineers v. Oerlikon textiles GmbH & Co KG, Himson Engineering Private Limited |
UPC_CFI_240/2023 |
App_3348/2025 |
ORD_4166/2025 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
Italian |
|
|
|
|
|
20/02/2025 |
10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience |
UPC_CFI_463/2023 |
App_2588/2025 |
ORD_3005/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Release of a deposite, R. 352 RoP |
|
|
19/02/2025 |
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_58/2024 |
ACT_7940/2024 |
ORD_65550/2024 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Zur Auslegung eines Patents dessen Aufgabe es ist, die zeitliche Verzögerung, die sog. Latenzzeit, bei der Bearbeitung von Datenpaketen und insbesondere Headern bei der Übertragung in einem drahtlosen Netzwerk zu überwinden. 2. Bei der Auslegung des Patentanspruchs sind neben dem Wortlaut die Anwendungsbeschreibung und ausdrückliche Offenbarungen in der Beschreibung der Patentschrift heranzuziehen. |
Art. 69 EPÜ, Art. 25 EPGÜ |
|
|
19/02/2025 |
Nokia Technologies Oy ao v. Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd ao |
UPC_CFI_112/2025 |
ACT_7300/2025 |
- |
Application for provisional measures |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
19/02/2025 |
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.M.B.H. v. Yunex Gmbh, Stadt Mönchengladbach |
UPC_CFI_156/2024 |
ACT_16855/2024 |
ORD_24915/2024 |
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Regel 360 VerfO ist auf Anträge auf Beweissicherung entsprechend anzuwenden. Insoweit liegt - wie auch für Verfahren auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung (vgl. LK München ORD_577734/2023 UPC_CFI_249/2023) - eine Regelungslücke vor._x000D_
2. Regel 198.1 VerfO ist auf Fälle der Erledigung eines Antrags auf Beweissicherung unter den Umständen des vorliegenden Falls entsprechend anzuwenden. Insoweit besteht eine planwidrige Regelungslücke._x000D_
3. Die Kostenentscheidung bleibt in derartigen Fällen dem Hauptverfahren vorbehalten. |
Kostenentscheidung im Hauptverfahren, Antrag auf Beweissicherung, Erledigung, Anordnung der Erhebung der Hauptsache |
|
|
19/02/2025 |
Posco v. v. ArcelorMittal, Autohaus Adelbert Moll Gmbh & Co. Kg, Xpeng Motors (Netherlands) Bv , Asian Motors Sales Bv, Moll Gmbh & Co.Kg, Xpeng European Holding Bv , Jean Lain Automobiles Sas, Hedin Automotive Sa, Xpeng Motors (Belgium) Sarl , E-Lain Sas, Ejner Hessel A/S, Bilia Ab, Xpeng Motors France Sarl |
UPC_CFI_583/2024 |
ORD_8329/2025 |
ORD_8329/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
19/02/2025 |
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.,v. Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Powerdeal Srl, Libra Energy, VDH Solar Groothandel, Coenergia Srl |
UPC_CFI_336/2024_UPC_CFI_605/2024 |
App_7738/2025 |
ORD_7932/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Extension of time limits |
|
|
19/02/2025 |
Mammoet Holding B.V. v. P.T.S Machinery B.V. |
UPC_CFI_16/2025 |
ACT_1474/2025 |
ORD_7979/2025 |
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
19/02/2025 |
Aarke AB v. SodaStream Industries Ltd. |
UPC_CoA_844/2024 |
App_1387/2025 |
ORD_7231/2025 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
Where an application to withdraw an action pursuant to R. 265 RoP has been made and the other party, despite having been given the opportunity to do so, has not requested to have any costs reimbursed, the Court concludes that there is no need for a cost decision. |
cost decision, withdrawal of an action |
|
|
19/02/2025 |
Dyson Technology Limited v. SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited |
UPC_CFI_322/2024_UPC_CFI_588/2024 |
App_5119/2025 |
ORD_8529/2025 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
R 265 RoP |
|
|
19/02/2025 |
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v. Dyson Technology |
UPC_CFI_322/2024_UPC_CFI_588/2024 |
App_5727/2025 |
ORD_8527/2025 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
R 265 RoP |
|
|
19/02/2025 |
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v. SWARCO FUTURIT, Yunex GmbH |
UPC_CFI_156/2024 |
ORD_8499/2025 |
ORD_8499/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
Rule 262.1.b RoP |
|
|
19/02/2025 |
Network System Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen AG |
UPC_CoA_218/2024_UPC_CoA_220/2024_UPC_CoA_222/2024 |
App_2709/2025 |
ORD_8348/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
When a party applies for the release of a deposit, which was made as a security for costs, because the underlying infringement action has been withdrawn, R. 352.2 RoP, which provides that the Court may upon the application of a party release a security for enforcement, should be applied by way of analogy. |
release of a security for costs |
|
|
19/02/2025 |
Network System Technologies Llc v. Audi AG |
UPC_CoA_217/2024_UPC_CoA_219/2024_UPC_CoA_221/2024 |
App_2704/2025 |
ORD_8353/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
When a party applies for the release of a deposit, which was made as a security for costs, because the underlying infringement action has been withdrawn, R. 352.2 RoP, which provides that the Court may upon the application of a party release a security for enforcement, should be applied by way of analogy. |
release of a security for costs |
|
|
17/02/2025 |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_15/2023 |
App_66551/2024 |
ORD_68584/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
The decision dated 15 November 2024 is rectified as follows: ... |
rectification, Rule 353 RoP |
|
|
17/02/2025 |
Footbridge Group Ab , Brunngård Group Ab v. Imbox Protection A/S |
UPC_CFI_527/2024 |
ACT_51647/2024 |
ORD_68981/2024 |
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
Reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party shall, as a general rule, be borne by the unsuccessful party, unless equity requires otherwise, up to the ceiling set by the Administrative Committee (Article 69 UPCA and Rule 152.2 RoP). According to the decision by the Administrative Committee on Scale of ceilings for recoverable costs, the ceiling applies to representation costs and the amount is set in relation to the value of the proceeding. This value of the proceeding is set in relation to the whole proceeding, not in relation to each defendant. Furthermore, the decision by the Administrative Committee clearly states that the ceilings shall apply “regardless of the number of parties”. Therefore, the Court concludes that when an application against several defendants is dismissed, the ceiling serves as a joint ceiling for all defendants’ representation costs. |
withdrawal, legal costs for representation, ceiling for recoverable costs, protection of confidential information |
|
|
17/02/2025 |
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v. Laser Components Sas, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_440/2023 |
ACT_588685/2023 |
ORD_598577/2023 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
French |
|
Conformément à la règle 113 du RdP – Durée de l’audience, le Juge-président peut fixer des délais pour les présentations orales des parties avant l’audience. According to Rule 113.1 RoP, 1. Without prejudice to the application of the principle of proportionality, the presiding judge shall endeavour to complete the oral hearing within one day. The presiding judge may set time limits for parties’ oral submissions in advance of the oral hearing. |
R.113 RoP. Time limits for parties' oral submissions |
|
|
17/02/2025 |
Aylo Premium Ltd v. DISH Technologies |
UPC_CFI_198/2024 |
App_56087/2024 |
ORD_59528/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
17/02/2025 |
Per Aarsleff A/S v. Ims Robotics Gmbh, Ims Robotics Nordic A/S |
UPC_CFI_495/2024_UPC_CFI_739/2024 |
App_6774/2025 |
ORD_6888/2025 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Decision, R. 265 RoP |
|
|
15/02/2025 |
Eoflow v. Insulet |
UPC_CFI_380/2024 |
App_65673/2024 |
ORD_65815/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits, since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. |
Preliminary injunction costs on the merits |
|
|
15/02/2025 |
Eoflow v. Insulet |
UPC_CFI_380/2024 |
App_5366/2025 |
ORD_7828/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
14/02/2025 |
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. |
UPC_CoA_382/2024 |
APL_39664/2024 |
ORD_67504/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
- As a general principle of claim interpretation, means-plus-function features must be understood as any feature suitable for carrying out the function. - A general injunction may be justified even if it is not shown that a patent is infringed by all possible infringing acts. One type of (likely) infringement suffices as a basis for a general preliminary injunction, which includes all possible ways of infringing. - The measures mentioned in Art. 67 UPCA may also be ordered in the framework of provisional measure proceedings, always provided that there is an urgent interest and such measures are proportionate. |
urgency, balance of interest, infringement, claim construction, general injunction, order to provide information, added matter |
|
|
14/02/2025 |
Gxd-Bio Corporation v. Myriad Genetics S.R.L., Myriad Gmbh, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service Gmbh, Myriad Genetics Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_437/2024 |
App_51844/2024 |
ORD_68782/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
DE
EN
NL
IT
FR