|
21/08/2024 |
Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy |
UPC_CoA_454/2024 |
APL_44552/2024 |
ORD_45292/2024 |
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
21/08/2024 |
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v. Valeo Electrification |
UPC_CFI_347/2024 |
App_46219/2024 |
ORD_46902/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
other proceedings, Confidentiality, PI proceedings, R. 262A RoP |
|
|
21/08/2024 |
Ballinno v. KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA |
UPC-CFI 230/2024 |
App_43845/2024 |
ORD_43896/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
An appeal against the denial of provisional measures does generally not justify a stay of revocation proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(m) RoP. Rule 295(m) RoP must be applied and interpreted in accordance with the principle according to which proceedings must be conducted in a way which will normally allow the final oral hearing at first instance to take place within one year. |
Rule 295(m) |
|
|
21/08/2024 |
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v. DISH Technologies, Sling TV L.L.C |
UPC_CoA_469/2024 |
App_47039/2024 |
ORD_48195/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
20/08/2024 |
SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, SORMEDICA, UAB, MERIL GMBH, INTERLUX, UAB |
UPC_CFI_380/2023 |
App_14061/2024 |
ORD_14940/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
20/08/2024 |
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, INTERLUX, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB |
UPC_CFI_380/2023 |
App_14299/2024 |
ORD_16663/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
19/08/2024 |
Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. |
UPC_CoA_388/2024 |
ORD_47551/2024 |
ORD_47551/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
16/08/2024 |
Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson |
UPC_CFI_317/2024 |
ORD_46326/2024 |
ORD_46326/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Lisbon (PT) Local Division |
English |
|
1. R. 13.1(h) RoP requires the indication of the actions before other courts or authorities related to the patent for the Court to assess their relevance within the UPC proceedings. 2. The examination to be made by the Registry according to R. 16.2 and 13.1(h) RoP is formal: whether any information at all has been provided. The Registry has no obligation to verify that the information provided is correct. 3. R. 13.1(h) RoP does not provide legal support for requesting that the Applicant submits to the proceedings copies of all prior art relied on in all of the related proceedings, together with pleadings, statements of case, and expert reports from such proceedings. |
Compliance, R. 13.1(h) RoP |
|
|
16/08/2024 |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, Smis, Sormedica |
UPC_CFI_8/2023 |
App_43606/2024 |
ORD_44404/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
13/08/2024 |
Network System Technologies v. Texas Instruments, Volkswagen, AUDI |
UPC_CFI_513/2023 |
App_39047/2024 |
ORD_39075/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Rule 265 RoP also applies if the action is not withdrawn in its entirety, but only in relation to some of several defendants (partial subjective withdrawal of action). |
Withdrawal of action |
|
|
12/08/2024 |
DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi v. SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme & STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions |
UPC_CFI_33/2024 |
App_36807/2024 |
ORD_39223/2024 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - Vienna (AT) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
12/08/2024 |
Seoul Semiconductor v. Amazon Services Europe |
UPC_CFI_281/2024 |
App_44885/2024 |
ORD_45092/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Die Rücknahme der Klage wird zugelassen. |
Zulassung, Rücknahme der Klage, Rückzahlung Gerichtsgebühren, Beendigung Verfahren |
|
|
09/08/2024 |
AGFA NV vs. Gucci |
UPC_CFI_278/2023 |
App_39127/2024 |
ORD_39257/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
09/08/2024 |
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd |
UPC_CFI_122/2024 |
App_39077/2024 |
ORD_39433/2024 |
Revocation Action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
Rule 265 |
Withdrawal |
|
|
08/08/2024 |
Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc. |
UPC_CFI_140/2024 |
App_41690/2024 |
ORD_42284/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
confidentiality club, summary proceedings, proceedings on the merits, confidentiality order, access of representatives |
|
|
08/08/2024 |
Alexion v. Amgen |
UPC_CoA_405/2024 |
App_44530/2024 |
ORD_44709/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
06/08/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH |
EPG_CoA_86/2024 |
APL_10370/2024 |
ORD_34249/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
Einer beklagten Gesellschaft in China oder Hongkong kann eine Klageschrift nicht ohne weiteres über eine Gesellschaft desselben Konzerns in einem Vertragsmitgliedstaat zugestellt werden. Eine solche Konzerngesellschaft kann weder zwangsläufig als satzungsmäßiger Sitz, Hauptverwaltung oder Hauptniederlassung angesehen werden, noch als Ort, an dem die Gesellschaft einen dauerhaften oder vorübergehenden Geschäftssitz gemäß R.271.5(a) VerfO hat. Zustellungsversuche in China nach dem Haager Zustellungsübereinkommen gemäß R.274.1(a)(ii) VerfO müssen in der Regel erfolgen, bevor die Zustellung nach dem Recht des Staates, in dem die Zustellung erfolgen soll (R.274.1(b) VerfO) oder durch alternative Verfahren oder an einem alternativen Ort (R.275 VerfO) zulässig ist. |
Verordnung (EU) 2020/1784, Haager Zustellungsübereinkommen, Zustellung außerhalb der Vertragsmitgliedstaaten, Zustellung, Verordnung (EU) 2020/1784, Haager Zustellungsübereinkommen, Zustellung außerhalb der Vertragsmitgliedstaaten |
|
|
06/08/2024 |
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College |
UPC_CoA_335/2024 |
App_22399/2024 |
ORD_27444/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
06/08/2024 |
Nera Innovations Ltd. v. Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH |
UPC_CoA_205/2024 |
APL_24585/2024 |
ORD_34253/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
Einer beklagten Gesellschaft in China kann eine Klageschrift nicht ohne weiteres über eine Gesellschaft desselben Konzerns in einem Vertragsmitgliedstaat zugestellt werden. Eine solche Konzerngesellschaft kann weder zwangsläufig als satzungsmäßiger Sitz, Hauptverwaltung oder Hauptniederlassung einer beklagten Gesellschaft in China angesehen werden, noch als Ort, an dem die beklagte Gesellschaft einen dauerhaften oder vorübergehenden Geschäftssitz hat. Zustellungsversuche in China nach dem Haager Zustellungsübereinkommen gemäß R.274.1(a)(ii) VerfO müssen in der Regel erfolgen, bevor die Zustellung nach dem Recht des Staates, in dem die Zustellung erfolgen soll (R.274.1(b) VerfO) oder durch alternative Verfahren oder an einem alternativen Ort (R.275 VerfO) zulässig ist. |
Zustellung, Verordnung (EU) 2020/1784, Haager Zustellungsübereinkommen, Zustellung außerhalb der Vertragsmitgliedstaaten |
|
|
06/08/2024 |
Daedalus Prime LLC v. Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH |
UPC_CoA_183/2024 |
APL_21602/2024 |
ORD_34252/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
- A defendant company in China or Taiwan cannot, as a starting point, be served a Statement of claim via a company within the same group in a Contracting Member State. Such a group company cannot automatically be seen as a statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business of a defendant company in China or Taiwan, nor a place where such defendant has a permanent or temporary place of business. - Attempts to serve in China by any method provided for by the Hague Convention pursuant to R.274.1(a)(ii) RoP shall normally be made before service permitted by the law of the state where service is to be effected (R.274.1(b) RoP) or by alternative methods or at an alternative place (R.275 RoP) is permitted. Similarly, attempts to serve in Taiwan by diplomatic or consular channels pursuant to R.274.1(a)(iii) shall be made. |
Service, Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, the Hague Convention, Service outside the Contracting Member States |
|
|
06/08/2024 |
Motorola Mobility v. Ericsson, Ericsson GmbH |
UPC_CFI_42/2024 |
App_25265/2024 |
ORD_27411/2024 |
Amend Document |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
The conditions set out in Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure for granting leave to amend are not met. The application must therefore be rejected. |
Rule 263 RoP |
|
|
06/08/2024 |
Manfred Sauer GmbH v. Qufora A/S |
UPC_CFI_67/2024 |
App_33560/2024 |
ORD_40041/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. Whether a waiver of the translation of exhibits into the language of the proceedings pursuant to Art. 51 (1) UPCA is appropriate is always a question of the individual case. 2. A comprehensive balancing of interests must take place. In particular, the language skills of the parties and their representatives and the language skills of the panel must be taken into account. The volume, the length or the quantity and the nature of the documents in question and their relevance to the proceedings is also of relevance. Other aspects may also be relevant in individual cases. |
language of proceedings, Rule 7 (1) RoP, Art. 51 UPCA, translation |
|
|
06/08/2024 |
Motorola Mobility v. Ericsson, Ericsson GmbH |
UPC_CFI_41/2024 |
App_25259/2024 |
ORD_25797/2024 |
Amend Document |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
The conditions set out in Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure for granting leave to amend are not met. The application must therefore be rejected. |
leave to amend, Rule 263 RoP |
|
|
06/08/2024 |
Orbisk B.V. v. Winnow Solutions Limited |
UPC_CFI_327/2024 |
App_44803/2024 |
ORD_45347/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
06/08/2024 |
NEC Corporation v. TCT |
UPC_CFI_498/2023 |
ORD_44084/2024 |
ORD_44084/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
A written statement by the party can be proof of service. |
service of documents |
|
EN
DE