Pierre Véron

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 1er 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


1078 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
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 Details Sommaire Mots clés Documents
28/03/2025 PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v. Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.P.A., Ilme Gmbh Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft UPC_CoA_170/2025 App_14792/2025 ORD_15005/2025 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
28/03/2025 Nichia Corporation v. Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH UPC_CFI_594/2024 App_14382/2025 ORD_14439/2025 Application Rop 365 Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
27/03/2025 ZENTIVA K.S., ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA UPC_CFI_698/2024 App_9038/2025 ORD_10348/2025 Application Rop313 Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section English    
Anglais flag EN
27/03/2025 DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v. Cloudflare. Inc. UPC_CFI_471/2023 ORD_15005/2025 ORD_15005/2025 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
26/03/2025 AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB v. Panasonic Holdings Corporation, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications, OROPE Germany UPC_CFI_ 210/2023 App_5154/2025 ORD_5519/2025 Application RoP262.1 (b) Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
26/03/2025 OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. UPC_CFI_260/2025 ACT_14438/2025 ORD_14757/2025 Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
26/03/2025 STÄUBLI TEC-SYSTEMS GMBH v. Respondents UPC_CoA_290/2024 APL_31428/2024 ORD_69054/2024 Appeal RoP220.1 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
26/03/2025 Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. v. STADAPHARM, STADA, Sanofi UPC_CFI_146/2024 App_11680/2025 ORD_13509/2025 Application Rop 265 Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
24/03/2025 TIRU v MAGUIN SAS UPC_CFI_813/2024 66560/2024 and 7220/2025 ORD_9276/2025 Request to review an order ex-parte Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division French    
Français flag FR
Anglais flag EN
24/03/2025 Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l.; Amazon EU S.à r.l.; Amazon.com, Inc. v. Nokia Technologies Oy UPC_CoA_835/2024 App_13834/2025 ORD_14282/2025 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
24/03/2025 TIRU v.  VALINEA ENERGIE UPC_CFI_814/2024 66573/2024 ORD_13139/2025 Request to review an order ex-parte Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division French    
Français flag FR
Anglais flag EN
21/03/2025 Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. UPC_CFI_582/2024 ACT_54438/2024 ORD_68979/2024 Application for provisional measures Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
21/03/2025 Mul-T-Lock France, Mul-T-Lock Suisse v. IMC Créations UPC_CFI_702/2024 App_10014/2025 ORD_11997/2025 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division French    
Français flag FR
Anglais flag EN
21/03/2025 Hand Held Products, Inc. v Scandit Ag UPC_CFI_76/2024 App_12931/2025 ORD_12950/2025 Application Rop 265 Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
20/03/2025 Brodrene Hartmann A/S v. Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel UPC_CFI_115/2024_UPC_CFI_377/2024 ORD_9089/2025 ORD_9089/2025 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
19/03/2025 EJP Maschinen GmbH v. MSG Maschinenbau GmbH UPC_CFI_696/2024 ACT_61090/2024 ORD_65866/2024 Application For Costs Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German *_* 1. Costs of the legal proceedings pursuant to Art. 69 UPCA are those (actually) incurred in the pending proceedings. Other costs are those that are directly and closely related to the proceedings in question._x000D_ _x000D_ 2.The respective costs in question, for which reimbursement is requested, must cumulatively be reasonable and proportionate, which is always a question of the individual case._x000D_ _x000D_ 3.Reasonable essentially means necessity. Fundamentally, from an ex-ante perspective of a reasonable and economically rational party, the decisive factor is whether the respective cost-triggering measure appeared objectively necessary and suitable to achieve the legitimate litigation objective. The measure must have appeared pertinent for the pursuit or defense of legal rights._x000D_ _x000D_ _x000D_ 4.Appropriateness primarily concerns the amount of costs. The costs actually incurred by the necessary measure must not be disproportionate in their specific amount. In particular, they must not be disproportionate to the value of the proceedings, the significance of the matter, the level of difficulty and the complexity of the legally and factually decision-relevant issues, or the prospects of success of the cost-incurring measure._x000D_ _x000D_ 5. Costs for the preparation of the application for the determination of costs are generally reimbursable.
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
19/03/2025 EJP Maschinen GmbH v. MSG Maschinenbau GmbH UPC_CFI_696/2024 ACT_61090/2024 ORD_69088/2024 Application For Costs Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German *_* 1. Legal costs pursuant to Art. 69 UPCA are those that have (actually) been incurred in the pending proceedings. Other expenses are those that are directly and closely related to the proceedings in question._x000D_ _x000D_ 2. The respective costs in question, for which reimbursement is requested, must cumulatively be reasonable and proportionate, which is always a question of the individual case._x000D_ _x000D_ 3. Reasonable essentially means necessity. Fundamentally, from an ex-ante perspective of a reasonable and economically rational party, the decisive factor is whether the respective cost-triggering measure appeared objectively necessary and suitable to achieve the legitimate litigation objective. The measure must have appeared pertinent for the pursuit or defense of legal rights._x000D_ _x000D_ 4. Appropriateness primarily concerns the amount of costs. The costs actually incurred by the necessary measure must not be disproportionate in their specific amount. In particular, they must not be disproportionate to the value of the proceedings, the significance of the matter, the level of difficulty and the complexity of the legally and factually decision-relevant issues, or the prospects of success of the cost-incurring measure._x000D_ _x000D_ 5. Costs for preparing the application for a cost decision are generally reimbursable.
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
19/03/2025 Chint Solar Netherlands B.V. , Astronergy Europe GmbH , Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH , Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V. v. JingAo Solar UPC_CFI_425/2024 App_54919/2024 ORD_55185/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
19/03/2025 Adeia Guides Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc. UPC_CFI_665/2024 ORD_13670/2025 ORD_13670/2025 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
18/03/2025 Adeia Guides Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc. UPC_CFI_665/2024 ACT_59975/2024 ORD_69068/2024 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
18/03/2025 Hand Held Products, Inc. v Scandit Ag UPC_CFI_73/2024 UPC_CFI_408/2024 App_12933/2025 ORD_13232/2025 Application Rop 265 Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
18/03/2025 Roku International B.V., Roku Inc. v. Sun Patent Trust UPC_CFI_339/2024 App_47531/2024 ORD_69030/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German *_* The alleged incompatibility of the legal bases of the UPC, in particular the provisions of the UPCA, with the requirements of European primary law in the form of the TEU and the TFEU, and the allegedly resulting invalidity of the UPCA, is not a ground for preliminary objection within the meaning of Rule 19 (1) RoP._x000D_ _x000D_ A preliminary objection under Rule 19(1) RoP cannot be successfully based on an alleged violation of Article 47(2) EU CFR or Article 6(1) sentence 1 ECHR._x000D_ _x000D_ If a representative of the Claimant has declared a withdrawal from the ‘opt-out’ concerning the patent at issue, it is not necessary for the Claimant to prove – on his own initiative – the representative's authorisation regarding the declared withdrawal in or with the Statement of claim. Proof must only be submitted in the event that the authorisation is contested._x000D_ _x000D_ For the assumption of jurisdiction, it is not necessary that an infringement has actually occurred or is imminent. Rather, within the scope of the examination of jurisdiction, it is sufficient if the Claimant conclusively asserts that an infringing act establishing the jurisdiction has occurred and that it cannot be ruled out from the outset.
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
18/03/2025 Sun Patent Trust v. Roku International B.V., Roku, Inc. UPC_CFI_339/2024 App_47532/2024 ORD_69037/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
18/03/2025 Roku Inc, Roku International B.V. v. Dolby International AB UPC_CFI_235/2024 App_45195/2024 ORD_69038/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
17/03/2025 Daedalus Prime LLC v. MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi UPC_CFI_169/2024 App_66363/2024 ORD_67603/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division English 1. Nach Art. 31 EPGÜ in Verbindung mit der Brüssel-Ia-Verordnung ist das EPG international zuständig, wenn die Gerichte eines Vertragsmitgliedstaats nach der Brüssel-Ia-Verordnung zuständig wären._x000D_ 2. Nach Art. 71b Abs. 2 Brüssel-Ia-VO i.V.m. Art. 7(2) Brüssel-Ia-Verordnung ist das EPG für alle Patentverletzungen, die in einem Mitgliedstaat des EPG begangen werden, international zuständig, unabhängig vom Wohnsitz des Beklagten. -
Anglais flag EN
1 ... 10 11 12 ... 44