|
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. 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the release of a deposit, which was made as a security for costs, because the underlying infringement action has been withdrawn, R. 352.2 RoP, which provides that the Court may upon the application of a party release a security for enforcement, should be applied by way of analogy.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 |
|
|
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 |
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 |
|
|
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 |
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 |
|
|
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 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
12/02/2025 |
Apple Inc., Apple Gmbh, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. Kg, Apple Retail France Eurl, Apple Distribution International Ltd. v. Ona Patents Sl |
UPC_CFI_99/2024 |
App_4511/2025 |
ORD_4743/2025 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
12/02/2025 |
Daedalus Prime LLC v. Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH |
UPC_CoA_621/2024 |
APL_58177/2024 |
ORD_68947/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
12/02/2025 |
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v. ***, SWAT Medical AB |
UPC_CoA_636/2024 |
ORD_7289/2025 |
ORD_7289/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
- Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC. - Representation is a point of admissibility involving public policy considerations (due process) which the Court may examine at any time, also of its own motion. |
Representation |
|
|
12/02/2025 |
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v. ***, SWAT Medical AB |
UPC_CoA_635/2024 |
ORD_7284/2025 |
ORD_7284/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
- Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC. - Representation is a point of admissibility involving public policy considerations (due process) which the Court may examine at any time, also of its own motion. |
Representation |
|
|
12/02/2025 |
Meril Italy Srl v. ***, SWAT Medical AB |
UPC_CoA_634/2024 |
ORD_64355/2024 |
ORD_64355/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
- Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC. - Representation is a point of admissibility involving public policy considerations (due process) which the Court may examine at any time, also of its own motion. |
Representation |
|
|
12/02/2025 |
Biolitec Holding Gmbh & Co. Kg v. S.I.A. Lightguide International, Light Guide Optics Germany Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_714/2024 |
App_67626/2024 |
ORD_68717/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
12/02/2025 |
Syngenta Limited v. Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited |
UPC_CFI_566/2024 |
ACT_53813/2024 |
ORD_68881/2024 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. The date for the Interim Conference via videoconference is set for 6 October 2025, 10.00 a.m. 2. Suggestions for topics for the Interim Conference may be submitted until 19 September 2025. 3. The date for the Oral Hearing in person at Denisstr. 3 in Munich, room 212 and overflow room 220b, is set for 10 December 2025, 9.00 a.m. 4. The parties are summoned to the Interim Conference and the Oral Hearing. 5. The Judge-Rapporteur requests the President of the Court of First Instance to assign Judge Dorland-Galliot to the panel as a technically qualified judge pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure. |
scheduling |
|
|
11/02/2025 |
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation |
UPC_CoA_563/2024 |
APL_53716/2024 |
ORD_68946/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
No corporate representative of a legal person or any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person, whether as a result of holding a high-level management or administrative position or holding a significant amount of shares in the legal person, may serve as a representative of that legal person, regardless of whether said corporate representative of the legal person or natural person is qualified to act as a UPC representative in accordance with Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA. • One of the objectives of parties being represented by a lawyer is, among other things, to ensure that legal persons are defended by a representative who is sufficiently distant from the legal person which he or she represents. • The independent exercise of the duties of a representative is not undermined by the mere fact that the lawyer or the European patent attorney, qualified as a representative under Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA, is employed by the party he or she represents. • A representative who is employed by a party must act towards the Court as an independent counsellor by serving the interests of his or her client in an unbiased manner without regard to his or her personal feelings or interests, pursuant to Art. 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct for Representatives who appear before the Court according to R. 290.2 RoP. |
Representation of parties in proceedings before the UPC, Art. 48 UPCA |
|
|
10/02/2025 |
AIM Sport Vision AG v TGI Sport Suomi Oy (previously Supponor Oy), TGI Sport Virtual Limited (previously Supponor Limited), Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL |
UPC_CFI_214/2023 |
App_3474/2025 |
ORD_6926/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Helsinki (FI) Local Division |
English |
|
The Court may add a party to the case when the right of defence of defendants, including the new party, are sufficiently guaranteed (R. 305 RoP). When considering the leave to amend the case or to change the claims (R. 263 RoP) the risk of irreconcilable and inconsistent decisions from different courts favours allowing the changes but at the same time protecting the frontloaded procedure of the UPC and the rights of the defendants to defend themselves must be the leading principles. The amendments to the case must be explained in R. 263 RoP application but can be detailed in an appendix. |
Change in parties, Leave to change claim or amend case |
|
|
10/02/2025 |
Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.P.A., Ilme Gmbh Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v. Phoenix Contact Gmbh & Co. Kg |
UPC_CFI_342/2024 |
App_45481/2024 |
ORD_68781/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Die Zuständigkeit des EPG gemäß Art. 32 Abs. 1 a) EPGÜ, Art. 2g), Art. 3c) EPGÜ umfasst Verletzungsklagen auch insoweit, als dass sie auf Benutzungshandlungen gestützt werden, die vor dem Inkrafttreten des EPGÜ und/oder in der Zeit zwischen einem Opt-Out und dem Rücktritt hiervon stattgefunden haben sollen. 2. Zuständigkeit und anwendbares Recht sind voneinander zu trennende Aspekte, die separat voneinander zu beurteilen sind. Weder kann aus der Zuständigkeit des EPG geschlossen werden, dass auf jeden zur Entscheidung gestellten Sachverhalt stets das EPGÜ Anwendung findet, noch ist das anwendbare Recht ausschlaggebend für die Zuständigkeit des EPG. |
Zuständigkeit, Einspruch, Inkrafttreten EPGÜ, Anwendbares Recht |
|
DE
EN
FR