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 1^er 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

Recherche globale

Recherche par champs

Date


et

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

Langue du document

Nouvelle recherche

1101 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
22/01/2025	Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak Gmbh, Kodak Graphic Communications Gmbh , Kodak Holding Gmbh	UPC_CFI_365/2023	ACT_579338/2023	ORD_598567/2023	Infringement Action	Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division	English			EN
21/01/2025	Njoy Netherlands B.V. v. Vmr Products Llc	UPC_CFI 311/2023	ACT_571745/2023	ORD_598528/2023	Revocation Action	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English	In order to assess whether or not a claimed invention lacks inventive step, it is first necessary to determine one or more realistic starting points in the state of the art, which would be of interest to a person skilled in the art who, at the priority date of the patent in suit, was seeking to develop a product or process similar to that disclosed in the prior art. In particular, realistic starting points are the documents which disclose the main relevant features as those disclosed in the challenged patent or which address the same or a similar underlying problem.	inventive step	EN
21/01/2025	Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.,v. Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Powerdeal Srl	UPC_CFI_336/2024 UPC_CFI_605/2024	App_3072/2025	ORD_3416/2025	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division	English		dismissal, Request for rectification, redacted version	EN
21/01/2025	XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V. V. Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH	UPC_CFI_483/2024	App_65942/2024	ORD_68820/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German			DE
21/01/2025	Air Up Group Gmbh	UPC_CFI_508/2023	App_64021/2024	ORD_68822/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	1. The rules on service in the Rules of Procedure must be interpreted in accordance with the principle of effective legal protection. It must therefore always be possible to establish good service, at least in accordance with Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure. 2. Where it has not been possible to serve the application for a provisional measure in accordance with Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure and where there is no indication that the decision by default, which is issued subsequently in the same proceedings, can be served in accordance with Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure, it is not necessary to attempt to serve the decision by default in accordance with Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure before an order is made under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.	decision by default, effective legal protection, service	EN
21/01/2025	Kipa Ab v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, Smis, Sormedica	UPC_CFI_380/2023	App_33375/2024	ORD_42124/2024	Application RoP262.1 (b)	Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division	English	There is no legal basis for ordering a member of the public, who has made a request for access to written pleadings and evidence, to reimburse legal costs incurred by the parties to the relevant proceedings when they are consulted by the judge-rapporteur in accordance with Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Article 69 UPCA does not apply in this situation. Therefore, such requests for reimbursement of costs shall be dismissed.	Article 69 UPCA, Rule 265 RoP, access to pleadings and evidence, Rule 262.1(b) RoP, legal costs, withdrawal,	EN
21/01/2025	Air Up Group Gmbh	UPC_CFI_509/2023	App_64978/2024	ORD_68821/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English	1. The rules on service in the Rules of Procedure must be interpreted in accordance with the principle of effective legal protection. It must therefore always be possible to establish good service, at least in accordance with Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure. 2. Where it has not been possible to serve the application for a provisional measure in accordance with Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure and where there is no indication that the decision by default, which is issued subsequently in the same proceedings, can be served in accordance with Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure, it is not necessary to attempt to serve the decision by default in accordance with Rule 274 of the Rules of Procedure before an order is made under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.	decision by default, effective legal protection, service	EN
20/01/2025	Amazon.Com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.À R.L. , Amazon Eu S.À R.L. v. Nokia Technologies Oy	UPC_CoA_835/2024	ORD_3182/2025	ORD_3182/2025	Generic Order	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	German			DE EN
20/01/2025	Amazon.Com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.À R.L. v. Nokia Technologies Oy	UPC_CoA_835/2024	App_68644/2024	ORD_68818/2024	Application RoP262A	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	German			DE EN
20/01/2025	Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited	UPC_CFI_430/2023	App_68471/2024	ORD_68796/2024	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division	English			EN
20/01/2025	Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited	UPC_CFI_430/2023	App_68369/2024	ORD_68797/2024	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division	English			EN
20/01/2025	Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited	UPC_CFI_430/2023	App_68693/2024	ORD_68783/2024	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division	English			EN
20/01/2025	SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v. Dyson Technology	UPC_CoA_297/2024	App_283/2025	ORD_3097/2025	Generic application	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	German	Die Frist von einem Monat für einen Antrag auf Kostenfestsetzung gemäß R. 151.1 VerfO beginnt mit der Zustellung der Sachentscheidung, nicht mit der Zustellung einer Anordnung über einstweilige Maßnahmen. Wenn der Antragsteller kein Verfahren in der Sache gemäß R. 213 VerfO einleitet, z. B. wenn der Antrag auf einstweilige Maßnahmen erfolglos war, gelten R. 150 und 151 VerfO entsprechend.	Antrag auf Kostenfestsetzung (R. 150.1 VerfO, R. 151.1 VerfO)	DE EN
20/01/2025	N.J Diffusion Sarl v. GISELA MAYER GmbH	UPC_CFI_363/2024	App_67911/2024	ORD_68816/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division	French			FR EN
17/01/2025	Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland Gmbh, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi S.R.L., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Ab, Sanofi Mature Ip, Sanofi-Aventis Gmbh	UPC_CFI_145/2024 UPC_CFI_146/2024 UPC_CFI_147/2024 UPC_CFI_148/2024	App_907/2025	ORD_2029/2025	Application Rop305	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English			EN
17/01/2025	Jef Nelissen v. Orthoapnea S.L., Vivisol B Bv	UPC_CFI_376/2023	ACT_581538/2023	ORD_598478/2023	Infringement Action	Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division	Dutch			NL EN
17/01/2025	Njoy Netherlands B.V. v. Juul Labs, Inc.	UPC CFI 316 /2023	ACT_571808/2023	ORD_598564/2023	Revocation Action	Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat	English			EN
17/01/2025	Nec Corporation	UPC_CFI_487/2023	App_2272/2025	ORD_2317/2025	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	English			EN
16/01/2025	SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v. STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH, Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.	UPC_CFI_33/2024	ORD_2646/2025	ORD_2647/2025	Decision By Default	Court of First Instance - Vienna (AT) Local Division	German			DE EN
16/01/2025	Fives Ecl, Sas v. Reel Gmbh	UPC_CoA_30/2024	APL_4000/2024	-	Appeal RoP220.1	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	German	GERMAN - Die Zuständigkeit des Gerichts (oder Jurisdiktion) besteht auch für eine selbständige Klage auf Festsetzung von Schadenersatz, nachdem ein Gericht eines Vertragsmitgliedstaates die Verletzung eines europäischen Patents und eine Verpflichtung des Verletzers dem Grunde nach zur Zahlung von Schadenersatz festgestellt hat. - Die Zuständigkeit des Gerichts erfasst auch Verletzungshandlungen, die vor dem Inkrafttreten des EPGÜ am 1. Juni 2023 begangen wurden, solange das geltend gemachte europäische Patent zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch nicht erloschen ist. ENGLISH - The Court’s competence (or jurisdiction) includes a separate action for determination of damages after a court of a Contracting Member State has established the existence of an infringement of a European patent and an obligation in principle for the infringer to pay damages. - The Court has jurisdiction to decide on acts of infringement committed before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023, as long as the European patent invoked has not yet lapsed at that date.	GERMAN Einspruch, Zuständigkeit, Schadenersatz ENGLISH Preliminary objection, jurisdiction, damages	DE EN
16/01/2025	Nvidia Corporation, Nvidia Gmbh	UPC_CFI_627/2024	App_64878/2024	ORD_65820/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division	German	1. When deciding on an application to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent was granted for reasons of fairness, all relevant circumstances must be taken into account including the fact that parties are domiciled in countries where the language of the proceedings chosen by the claimant is an official language. 2. Ensuring a fair access to justice for medium-sized enterprises is an important objective of the UPCA.	Change of the language of the proceedings	DE
16/01/2025	Daedalus Prime Llc v. Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Intel Corporation, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.	UPC_CFI_169/2024 436/2024	App_64836/2024	ORD_65257/2024	Generic application	Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division	English			EN
16/01/2025	Bhagat Textile Engineers v. Oerlikon Textile Gmbh & Co Kg	UPC_CoA_12/2025	App_1182/2025	ORD_2674/2025	Application Rop 223	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	Italian	Il requisito delle circostanze eccezionali che giustificano una richiesta di effetto sospensivo ai sensi del R 223 RdP deve essere dimostrato dal richiedente. Nel caso di specie, il richiedente non ha dimostrato l'esistenza di tali circostanze eccezionali.	Effetto sospensivo del ricorso, R 223 RdP	IT EN
16/01/2025	Tesla Germany Gmbh, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg Se	UPC_CFI_54/2023	App_66712/2024	ORD_68807/2024	Application Rop 265	Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division	English	1. Für die Rücknahme eines noch in erster Instanz anhängigen Antrags auf Festsetzung der zu erstattenden Kosten ist das Gericht erster Instanz zuständig, auch wenn sich das Hauptsacheverfahren (Klage und Widerklage) bereits in der Berufungsinstanz befindet. 2. Da es sich nicht um eine Maßnahme der Verfahrensleitung nach Regeln 331 ff VerfO handelt, sondern um eine Sachentscheidung in originärer Kompetenz des Berichterstatters nach Regel 156.2 VerfO, ist der Berichterstatter auch für die Zulassung der Rücknahme originär und allein zuständig.	Rücknahme des Kostenfestsetzungsantrags, Regel 156 VerfO, Regel 265 VerfO.	EN EN
15/01/2025	Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited	UPC_CoA_629/2024 UPC_CoA_631/2024 UPC_CoA_632/2024	App_68614/2024	ORD_68790/2024	Generic application	Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)	German			DE EN

1 ... 17 18 19 ... 45