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


465 résultats trouvés




Date
Parties
Numéro de l'affaire
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 la décision ou de l'ordonnance Type d'action Juridiction - Division Langue de procédure Details Sommaire Mots clés Documents
11/04/2024 Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v. VitalAire GmbH, Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V, Dinno Santé s.a.i. ORD_13986/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German (1) Pursuant to Art. 49 (2) UPCA the Contracting States may designate one or more official languages of the European Patent Office as language of proceedings of their local divisions in addition to an official language of the European Union which is an official language of the Contracting State in whose territory the local division Düsseldorf is located (Art. 49 (1) UPCA). The Federal Republic of Germany has made use of this possibility and has authorised English as an official language of the European Patent Office in addition to German as an official language of the European Union. (2) Pursuant to Rule 14.2(a) RP the applicant may choose either of the two languages mentioned as the language of proceedings. (3) Rule 14.2(b)(4) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the proceedings are to be conducted in the official language of the defendant where a provision of the Member State having more than one official language so provides and, where there are two or more defendants with different official languages, the applicant may choose the language from among the official languages concerned. According to the wording of the provision, the official language means the official language of the Contracting State. The Federal Republic of Germany does not provide for any official languages within the meaning of this Rule other than German, in particular English. 4 Pursuant to Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Procedure, a party may also submit a document in paper form to the Registry or to a branch of the Registry which cannot be filed electronically because the electronic case management system of the Court is no longer functioning. For this purpose, the document must be delivered to the premises of the sub-registry or the document must reach the sub-registry by other means within the time limit. Language of the proceedings, Overnight letter box
Allemand flag DE
11/04/2024 F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v. Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. ORD_13996/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German 1. Pursuant to Art. 49 (2) UPCA the contracting member states may designate one or more official languages of the European Patent Office as language of proceedings of their local divisions in addition to an official language of the European Union which is an official language of the contracting member state in whose territory the local division Düsseldorf is located (Art. 49 (1) UPCA). The Federal Republic of Germany has made use of this possibility and has admitted English as an official language of the European Patent Office in addition to German as an official language of the European Union. 2. Pursuant to Rule 14.2(a) RP the applicant may choose either of the two languages mentioned as the language of proceedings. 3. Rule 14.2(b)(4) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where the law of a Member State with more than one official language so provides, the proceedings are to be conducted in the official language of the defendant and that, where there are two or more defendants with different official languages, the applicant may choose a language from among the official languages concerned. According to the wording of the provision, the official language means the official language of the Contracting State. The Federal Republic of Germany does not provide for any official languages within the meaning of this Rule other than German, in particular English. 4. Pursuant to Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Procedure, a party may also submit a document in paper form to the Registry or to a branch of the Registry which cannot be filed electronically because the electronic case management system of the Court is no longer functioning. For this purpose, the document must be delivered to the premises of the sub-registry or the document must otherwise reach the sub-registry within the time limit. Overnight letter box, Official language
Allemand flag DE
11/04/2024 Neo Wireless v.Toyota Motor Europe ORD_19643/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English If an appeal is lodged under R.220.2 RoP and leave is granted in the impugned order itself, the Statement of appeal must be lodged within 15 days of service of that order containing the decision to grant leave. If the decision to grant leave to appeal is contained in a separate order on a request to that effect (which separate order must be issued within 15 days of the impugned order, cf R.220.3 RoP), the Statement of appeal has to be lodged within 15 days from the date of service of this separate order containing the decision to grant leave to appeal. Time period for filing a Statement of appeal under R.220.2 RoP
Anglais flag EN
11/04/2024 SVF Holdco v. ICPillar LLC ORD_18817/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
10/04/2024 Ocado Innovation Limited v. *** ORD_19369/2024 Generic Order Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English - Art. 9(1) UPCA must be interpreted such that if the subject matter of the appeal proceedings is of a non-technical nature only, and there are no technical issues at stake, the Court of Appeal may decide the matter without the need to assign two technically qualified judges to its panel of three legally qualified judges. This is without prejudice to the fact that once technically qualified judges have been assigned, they will, as judges, have to deal with the entire dispute, including the non-technical aspects thereof. - When a request to make written pleadings and evidence available to a member of the public is made pursuant to R.262.1(b) RoP, the interests of a member of the public of getting access to the written pleadings and evidence must be weighed against the interests mentioned in Art. 45 UPCA. These interests include the protection of confidential information and personal data (’the interest of one of the parties or other affected persons’) but are not limited thereto. The general interest of justice and public order also have to be taken into account. The general interest of justice includes the protection of the integrity of proceedings. - A reasoned request under R.262.1(b) RoP is not the same, and has to be distinguished from, an application under R.262.3 RoP. Public access to written pleadings and evidence, R.262.1(b) RoP, Composition of the panel of the Court of Appeal, Art. 9(1) UPCA
Anglais flag EN
09/04/2024 Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v. Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH ORD_13918/2024 Request to review an order ex-parte Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
09/04/2024 Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Shamrock Mobile GmbH ORD_18690/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
08/04/2024 PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG /1. AWM S.R.L. 2 SCHNELL S.P.A. ORD_9710/2024   Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
08/04/2024 Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril GmbH ORD_16799/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
04/04/2024 FUJIFILM Corporation UPC_CFI_355/2023 ORD_18050/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English 1. R. 9.3 (a) of the Rules of Procedure authorises the Court to extend time periods. However, this possibility should only be used with caution and only in justified exceptional cases. 2. Such an exceptional case regularly exists if access to a pleading in the unredacted version was initially restricted to the representatives due to an application for protection of confidential information (R. 262A RoP). The only way to ensure that the party concerned can exchange information with its representatives, develop a strategy taking into account the arguments of the other party and, where necessary, provide technical and/or economic input, is to grant access to the information in question to the party's employees with the relevant knowledge. 3. The Rules of Procedure provide for a time period of two months for the filing of the Reply to the Statement of defence which includes a Counterclaim for revocation (R. 29 (a) RoP). This time period must be available to the claimant and its representatives in order to jointly develop a defence strategy based on all the facts and to file pleadings on the basis of that strategy. Therefore, an extension of the time period is, in principle, granted upon request. 4. The same applies to the Counterclaim for revocation. The principles of due process and the right to be heard require that a party must be able to reconcile its arguments on (non)-infringement with those on validity and possible amendment of the claims, in particular in its first submission on validity. R. 262A-Application, Extension of a time period
Anglais flag EN
03/04/2024 Panasonic Holdings Corporation , Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. ORD_11979/2024 Procedural order Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
03/04/2024 Juul Labs, Inc. v. NJOY Netherlands B.V ORD_598223/2023 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
Anglais flag EN
03/04/2024 Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH UFC_CFI_52-2023 ORD_16076/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German Anwendung von Artikel 33.3 EPGÜ. Art. 33.3 EPGÜ; Regel 37 VerfO
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
02/04/2024 Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited ORD_17267/2024 Application RoP262A Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
28/03/2024 Curio Bioscience Inc. vs. 10x Genomics, Inc. UPC_CoA_101/2024 ORD_16931/2024 R. 262A VerfO – Schutz vertraulicher Informationen Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
Allemand flag DE
27/03/2024 FUJIFILM Corporation v. 1. Kodak GmbH , 2. Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, 3. Kodak Holding GmbH UPC_CFI_355/2023 ORD_7096/2024 Procedural Order Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
26/03/2024 NOVAWELL v. C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED ORD_12088/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
22/03/2024 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Curio Bioscience Inc. UPC_CFI_463/2023 ORD_14983/2024 Procedural Order Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German 1. Gemäß Art. 51 Abs. 2 EPGÜ sehen alle Kammern des Gerichts erster Instanz, soweit dies an­­­ge­­­mes­­sen erscheint, auf Verlangen einer Partei eine Verdolmetschung vor, um die Partei bei der mündli­chen Verhandlung zu unterstützen. Dieser allgemeine Grundsatz wird in R. 109 VerfO näher kon­kre­tisiert. 2. Ziel der Simultanverdolmetschung ist es, den Beteiligten, welche der Verfahrenssprache nicht oder nicht in ausreichendem Maße mächtig sind, eine aktive Teilnahme an der mündli­chen Verhandlung zu er­­mög­­lichen. Dabei kann die Verdolmetschung sowohl in als auch aus der Verfahrenssprache erfol­gen (vgl. R. 109.1 VerfO). 3. Ei­ne Verdolmetschung ist nach Art. 51 Abs. 2 EPGÜ allerdings nur in dem Umfang vorgese­hen, wie diese angemessen erscheint, um eine Partei in der mündlichen Verhandlung zu un­ter­stüt­zen. Im Übri­­gen verbleibt es bei der Notwendigkeit, in der Verfahrenssprache zu ver­han­deln. Sind einzelne Parteivertreter der Verfahrenssprache mächtig, besteht weder Grund noch Veranlassung, ihnen die Verhandlung in einer anderen Sprache als der Verfah­rens­spra­che unter Einsatz einer Simultanverdolmetschung zu gestatten. Simultanverdolmetschung; Änderung der Verfahrenssprache
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
21/03/2024 Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd ORD_598257/2023 Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
20/03/2024 Belkin Limited , Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc ORD_12006/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
18/03/2024 ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v. Osaka University, Healios K.K UPC_CFI_80/2023 ORD_598256/2023 Revocation Action Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section English    
Anglais flag EN
18/03/2024 Astellas / Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University UPC_CFI_75/2023 ORD_598255/2023 Revocation action Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section English    
Anglais flag EN
14/03/2024 Abbott /Dexcom ORD_16796/2024 Decision By Default Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
Anglais flag EN
13/03/2024 Laser Components SAS v Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd UPC_CFI_440/2023 ORD_13006/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
13/03/2024 Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K. UPC_CFI_354/2023 ORD_598210/2023 Application for provisional measures Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
1 ... 11 12 13 ... 19