|
28/01/2025 |
Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak Holding Gmbh, Kodak Gmbh, Kodak Graphic Communications Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_355/2023 |
ACT_578607/2023 |
ORD_598539/2023 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. If the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State (here: Germany), the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK part of the patent in suit. This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. The terms used in a claim should normally be given their broadest technically sensible meaning in the context of the claim in which they appear. Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol do not provide a justification for excluding what is literally covered by the terms of the claims by a narrowing claim construction based on the description or the drawings. A narrowing interpretation of the claims which deviates from the broader general understanding of the terms used therein by a skilled person can only be permitted if there are convincing reasons based on the circumstances of the individual case in question. 3. Implicit disclosure means no more than the clear, immediate and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned in a prior-art document. Therefore, “implicit disclosure” encompasses any feature which a person skilled in the art would objectively consider as necessarily implied in the explicit content of a prior-art document, e.g. in view of general scientific laws. A claimed feature is also implicitly disclosed if, in carrying out the teaching of a prior-art document, the skilled person would inevitably arrive at a result falling within the terms of a claim. Whether a known product possesses an implicit feature does not depend on whether the skilled person's attention is drawn to precisely that feature by a prior art document or their common general knowledge, but merely on whether, from a purely objective perspective, said product inevitably must possess that feature. 4. To comply with Art. 123(2) EPC, the subject-matter of an amended claim must be directly and unambiguously taught to the skilled person by the original application. A direct teaching requires that the subject-matter is originally taught as specific, clearly defined and recognizable individual embodiment, either explicitly or implicitly, without the necessity of applying any deductive skills. An unambiguous teaching requires that it has to be beyond doubt – not merely probable – that the claimed subject-matter of an amended claim was disclosed as such in the application as originally filed. |
added matter, implicit disclosure, Long arm jurisdiction, narrowing claim construction |
|
|
28/01/2025 |
Qualcomm Incorporated v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings, Tecno Mobile Ltd, Infinix Mobility Ltd, Tekpoint GmbH, Galaxus Deutschland GmbH, |
UPC_CFI_421/2024 |
App_2710/2025 |
ORD_2863/2025 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Withdrawal, Reimbursement court fees |
|
|
27/01/2025 |
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation |
UPC_CFI_755/2024 |
App_2740/2025 |
ORD_3075/2025 |
- |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
If an applicant withdraws the application for interim measures after an ex parte order has been issued but before it has been reviewed, reimbursement of the court fees paid in the amount of 20% pursuant to Rule 370.9 (b) (iii) of the Rules of Procedure may be considered by analogy. |
Ex-parte Anordnung, Rücknahme, Ex-parte Anordnung, Antrag auf Erlass einstweiliger Maßnahmen, Gebührenerstattung |
|
|
27/01/2025 |
Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft Mbb |
UPC_CFI_52/2023 |
App_65499/2024 |
ORD_68640/2024 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
27/01/2025 |
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Asustek (Uk) Limited, Asus Computer Gmbh, Asustek Computer Inc. |
UPC_CFI_302/2024 |
ORD_4350/2025 |
ORD_4350/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
27/01/2025 |
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v. Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_244/2024_UPC_CFI_786/2024 |
ORD_4250/2025 |
ORD_4250/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. If a small enterprise shows an operating loss in the most recently prepared annual financial statement and if assets are not available as security to a sufficient extent, security is to be ordered at the request of the opposing party in accordance with Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. 2. When assessing the security, reasons of equity that become relevant for the subsequent determination of costs must be taken into account. This is because the assessment of the security must be based on the costs to be determined in accordance with Art. 69 UPCA; according to Art. 69 UPCA, reasons of equity may preclude the bearing of costs in whole or in part. 3. The possibility of a reduction of fees or costs for the purpose of granting effective access to justice is a principle determining UPC law. This must also be taken into account with respect to equity when assessing the amount of a security to be provided by a small enterprise. 4. A party that is able to pay both its own costs (court fees and representation costs) and a security set by the court is able to bear the costs. Legal aid cannot be granted in this case. |
security, small enterprise |
|
|
27/01/2025 |
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v. Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_244/2024_UPC_CFI_786/2024 |
ORD_4288/2025 |
ORD_4288/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Weist ein Kleinunternehmen im zuletzt erstellten Jahresabschluss einen Betriebsverlust aus und stehen Vermögenswerte als Sicherheit nicht in ausreichendem Maße zur Verfügung, ist auf Antrag des Gegners eine Sicherheitsleistung nach Regel 158 EPGVerfO anzuordnen. 2. Bei der Bemessung der Sicherheitsleistung sind für die spätere Kostenfestsetzung maßgeblich werdende Billigkeitsgründe zu berücksichtigen. Denn die Bemessung der Sicherheitsleistung hat sich an den nach Art. 69 EPGÜ festzusetzenden Kosten zu orientieren; nach Art. 69 EPGÜ können Billigkeitsgründe der Kostentragung ganz oder teilweise entgegenstehen. 3. Bei der Möglichkeit einer Gebühren- bzw. Kostenreduktion zum Zwecke der Gewährung des wirksamen Zugangs zum Recht handelt es sich um einen das EPG-Recht bestimmenden Grundsatz. Dieser ist als Billigkeitserwägung auch bei der Bemessung einer von einem Kleinunternehmen zu erbringenden Sicherheitsleistung zu beachten. 4. Eine Partei, die sowohl ihre eigenen Kosten (Gerichtsgebühren und Vertretungskosten) als auch eine gerichtlich festgesetzte Sicherheit leisten kann, ist zur Kostentragung im Stande. Prozesskostenhilfe kann in diesem Fall nicht bewilligt werden. |
Kleinunternehmen |
|
|
27/01/2025 |
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Asustek Computer Inc., Asus Computer Gmbh, Asustek (Uk) Limited |
UPC_CFI_302/2024 |
ACT_33753/2024 |
ORD_68771/2024 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Alpinestars Research S.P.A, Ulrich Herpich E.K, Alpinestars S.P.A., Omnia Retail S.R.L. , Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy , Motocard Bike, S.L. v. Dainese S.P.A. |
UPC_CFI_472/2024 |
App_63878/2024 |
ORD_68844/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
English |
|
Rule, 262 A.6 .RoP (“The number of persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be no greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the right of the parties to the legal proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and shall include, at least, one natural person from each party and the respective lawyers or other representatives of those parties to the legal proceedings) which is designed to protect the principle of the adversarial process, may be derogated: A) with parties' consent; B) in the event of interference of the patent system with the antitrust system: the Community system expressly allows that access is not granted to natural persons but only to their advisers (see EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ‘Communication on the protection of confidential information by national courts in proceedings concerning the private enforcement of EU competition law’ (2020/C 242/01, para. 61 |
rule 262 A ROP |
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Dexcom, Inc. / Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V |
UPC_CoA_505/2024 |
App_68655/2024 |
ORD_68847/2024 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Dexcom, Inc. / Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V |
UPC_CoA_569/2024 |
ORD_3184/2025 |
ORD_3184/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S |
UPC_CFI_54/2024-UPC_CFI_396/2024 |
App_66588/2024 |
ORD_68686/2024 |
Amend Document |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Photon Wave Co., Ltd. v. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_238/2024 |
ORD_3876/2025 |
ORD_3876/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Tcl Deutschland Gmbh & Co. Kg, Tcl Operations Polska Sp. Z.O.O, Tct Mobile Germany Gmbh, Tct Mobile Europe Sas |
UPC_CFI_487/2023 |
App_2192/2025 |
ORD_2322/2025 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
In accordance with Rule 370 RoP, analogous court fees are payable for the filing of a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer. |
Reimbursement court fees, Counterclaim FRAND-offer, Obligation to pay court fees, Withdrawal |
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Institute Of Professional Representatives Before The European Patent Office v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, Microsoft Corporation |
UPC_CFI_164/2024 |
App_67889/2024 |
ORD_67980/2024 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
The interest in ensuring that the parties present their arguments and evidence and that the Court conducts the proceedings impartially and independently, without influence and interference from external parties in the public sector, is of the paramount importance and, as such, prevails over the competing interest in access to the case file where this latter interest cannot be satisfied through access to the written pleadings or evidence of the proceedings as the matter at hand concerns a purely legal and general issue. |
public access to register |
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott S.R.L., Abbott Gesellschaft M.B.H., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott, Abbott B.V. |
UPC_CoA_840/2024 |
App_1178/2025 |
ORD_3985/2025 |
Application Rop 265 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Heraeus Electronics Gmbh & Co. Kg v. Vibrantz Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_114_448/2024 |
ACT_13227/2024 |
ORD_68785/2024 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
24/01/2025 |
Sanofi v. Accord Healthcare, Stadapharm, Reddy, Betafarm, Zentiva |
UPC_CFI_145_147_148_374_463_496_503/2024 |
CC_49716/2024 |
ORD_68846/2024 |
Counterclaim for revocation |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
23/01/2025 |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_815/2024 |
ORD_3866/2025 |
ORD_3866/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Reference is made to the order of the Central Division, Paris Seat, of 30 July 2024 (APP_37662/2024 UPC_CFI_367/2023). The Court intends to follow this reasoning. |
Rule 262.2 RoP, application for confidentiality, cost proccedings, Rule 262A RoP |
|
|
23/01/2025 |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_815/2024 |
App_2876/2025 |
ORD_3764/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Rule 295.d RoP |
|
|
23/01/2025 |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_815/2024 |
App_3108/2025 |
ORD_3774/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Deadline extension |
|
|
23/01/2025 |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_815/2024 |
App_2875/2025 |
ORD_3758/2025 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Rule 295.d RoP, partial stay, R 295.d RoP |
|
|
22/01/2025 |
Njoy Netherlands B.V v. Vmr Products Llc |
UPC_CFI_310/2023 |
ACT_571730-2023 |
ORD_598526/2023 |
Revocation Action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
Defendant's alternative request to maintain the patent at suit with respect to one or more of its dependent claims is a sufficiently clear request, even if it does not specify a particular claim, and, as such, imposes on the Court the obligation to rule on the matter and decide which claims, if any, remain valid. |
common general knowledge, late filed documents, validity of the patent |
|
|
22/01/2025 |
Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi S.R.L., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Ab, Sanofi-Aventis Gmbh, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland Gmbh, Sanofi Mature Ip, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v. Accord Healthcare Ab, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Gmbh, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare Bv, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda. |
UPC_CFI_145/2024 UPC_CFI_146/2024 UPC_CFI_147/2024 UPC_CFI_148/2024 |
ORD_3577/2025 |
ORD_3577/2025 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Order following an oral argument hearing (“preliminary interim conference”). |
preliminary interim conference, Rule 105.5 RoP, oral argument hearing |
|
|
22/01/2025 |
Mammoet Holding B.V. v. P.T.S Machinery B.V. |
UPC_CFI_16/2025 |
ACT_1474/2025 |
ORD_3693/2025 |
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
EN
DE