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


701 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
20/09/2024 Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v. Valeo Electrification UPC_CFI_347/2024 App_51893/2024 ORD_52043/2024 Application RoP262A Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English    
18/09/2024 AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_264/2024 APL_30168/2024 ORD_48996/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
18/09/2024 Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc. v. Ona Patents SL UPC_CoA_354/2024 APL_ 38948/2024 ORD_48659/2024 Appeal RoP220.1 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
18/09/2024 Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v. Ona Patents SL UPC_CoA_349/2024 APL_38206/2024 ORD_48660/2024 Appeal RoP220.1 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
18/09/2024 Erik Krahbichler v. Edwards Lifesciences, Meril, Smis UPC_CFI_8/2023 App_33493/2024 ORD_36466/2024 Application RoP262.1 (b) Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division English Article 45 UPCA means that also the written procedure of the Court shall, in principle, be open to the public unless the Court decides to make it confidential, to the extent necessary, in the interest of one of the parties or other affected persons, or in the general interest of justice or public order. If a person has made an application under Rule 262.1(b) for access to pleadings or evidence and provided a credible explanation for why he/she wants access, the application shall be approved unless it is necessary to keep the information confidential. RoP 262.1 (b)
17/09/2024 Mala Technologies Ltd. v. Nokia Technology GmbH UPC_CoA_227/2024 APL_26889/2024 ORD_43637/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
17/09/2024 Volkswagen AG v. Network System Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_218/2024 APL_25922/2024 ORD_48922/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
17/09/2024 AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_217/2024 APL_25919/2024 ORD_48916/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
17/09/2024 Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy UPC_CFI_164/2024 App_40799/2024 ORD_41174/2024 Application Rop 333 Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English    
17/09/2024 Jef Nelissen v. OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV UPC_CFI_376/2023 ACT_581538/2023 ORD_598476/2023 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division Dutch The use of pleading notes and visual representations/aides at the oral hearing is permitted if they are communicated to the opposing party in a timely manner. The use of physical examples/models is permitted at the oral hearing if they are filed as an additional exhibit at the registry and if they are communicated to the opposing party. Whether or not a valuation is "sufficient" in the light of the possible recoverable costs (in application of R. 152.3. RoP) does not concern any factor to be taken into consideration in assessing the valuation of the case. Value of action, Oral Hearing, Interim Conference
17/09/2024 Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy UPC_CFI_164/2024 App_42138/2024 ORD_43015/2024 Application Rop 333 Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English    
17/09/2024 Powell Gilbert LLP v. Ballinno B.V., Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH UPC_CFI_151/2024 App_39793/2024 ORD_40128/2024 Application RoP262.1 (b) Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division English 1. 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. 2. A party can at any stage – also after the end of the proceedings – request for confidentiality of certain information submitted under R.262.2 RoP. 3. The general line of argument as well as the nature of evidence provided by the parties of the main proceedings as well as the working of the Court can be examined by the applicant based on the redacted versions. Application R. 262.1 (b) RoP; Confidentiality request R. 262.2 RoP; Art. 45 UPCA.
17/09/2024 Panasonic Holdings v. Guangdong OPPO, OROPE UPC_CFI_ 210/2023 App_52033/2024 ORD_52137/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German 1.Beweisanträge, die nach Abschluss des Zwischenverfahrens gestellt sind, sind regelmäßig zurückzuweisen. 2. Ein Parteigutachter, der zu methodischen Fragen eines ökonomischen Gutachtens befragt werden soll, ist kein Zeuge. Es kommt allenfalls eine Anhörung nach Regel 181 VerfO in Betracht. 3. Ob unter Umständen weitere Beweise erforderlich sind, kann der Spruchkörper gemäß Regel 114 VerfO entscheiden. Parteisachverständiger, Zeuge, Antrag nach Abschluss des Zwischenverfahrens
17/09/2024 Meril v. Edwards UPC_CFI_189/2024 App_45333/2024 ORD_45922/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English    
17/09/2024 Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited UPC_CFI_424/2023 App_44664/2024 ORD_45345/2024 Amend Document Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division English Leave to amend counter claim with a declaration of non-infringement granted after withdrawal of the infringement claim against one device (of two). R. 263.2 RoP requirements complied with. amendment of claim
16/09/2024 Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. ITCiCo Spain S.L. UPC_CFI_412/2023 App_5975/2024 ORD_51965/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English    
16/09/2024 ICPillar LLC v. Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, ARM Limited, Arm France SAS, SVF Holdco, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited UPC_CoA_301/2024 APL_33746/2024 ORD_50692/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
16/09/2024 Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L UPC_CFI_ 219/2023 ACT_545615/2023 ORD_598442/2023 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German Zur Strukturierung einer SEP-Verhandlung SEP, FRAND, mündliche Verhandlung
16/09/2024 Panasonic Holdings v. Guangdong OPPO, OROPE UPC_CFI_ 210/2023 ACT_545551/2023 ORD_598440/2023 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German Zur Strukturierung einer SEP-Verhandlung SEP, FRAND, mündliche Verhandlung
13/09/2024 Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., UPC_CFI_390/2023 ACT_583273/2023 ORD_598464/2023 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German 1. The subject-matter of the invention as derived from the description and drawings is protected only if it is so expressed in the language of the claims. 2. If several embodiments are presented in the description as being in accordance with the claimed invention, the terms used in the patent claim shall, in case of doubt, be understood in such a way that all embodiments fall under the claim construction. 3. A patent infringer under the UPCA is a person who acts as a manufacturer or supplier, or who appears to the relevant trade to be such a person, and who manufactures and/or sells the goods in his own name and for his own account. 4. If a company infringes a patent, the issuance of an order pursuant to Art. 63(1), 2nd sentence, UPCA (order against intermediaries) may be considered with regard to the organs that company. Res judicata effects of foreign decisions, Right to be sued, Intermediary, Claim construction
13/09/2024 Grundfos Holding A/S v. Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. UPC_CFI_11/2024 ACT_2097/2024 ORD_50641/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German   Einheitliche Verhandlung Klage und Nichtigkeitswiderklage
13/09/2024 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v. EPO UPC_CFI_427/2024 App_42538/2024 ORD_51358/2024 Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP88) Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English The Application pursuant to R. 88 RoP has been processed by the Court and forwarded for interlocutory revision to the EPO, the Office has rectified the contested decision in accordance with the request and the submission of the Claimant doesn’t mention any particular circumstance justifying a decision of reimbursement. The case shall be closed without prior consultation of the parties. Application pursuant to R. 88 RoP
09/09/2024 Panasonic v. Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo Gmbh UPC_CFI_219/2023 App_45837/2024 ORD_47201/2024 Application Rop 333 Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
09/09/2024 Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Shenzen Yunding Information Technology UPC_CFI_516/2024 ACT_50855/2024 ORD_50890/2024   Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division German   The necessity of taking interim measures after issuing a cease-and-desist declaration and exhibiting at an international trade fair
09/09/2024 Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. UPC_CFI_88/2024 App_28467/2024 ORD_28786/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division English    
1 ... 11 12 13 ... 29