|
30/12/2024 |
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH |
UPC_CFI_168/2024 |
ACT_18917/2024 |
ORD_68568/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Die Präsidentin des Gerichts erster Instanz wird gebeten, dem Verfahren mit Wirkung ab dem 1. Januar 2025 einen anderen technisch qualifizierten Richter zuzuweisen |
Rücktritt eines Richters, Art. 9.2 Statuten, Regel 34 1 VerfO |
|
|
30/12/2024 |
Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. |
UPC_CFI_173/2024 UPC_CFI_424/2024 |
App_62431/2024 |
ORD_63489/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Der Berichterstatter hat den Grundsatz der Verfahrensökonomie nicht nur in Bezug auf die Parteien, sondern als Stellvertreter auch für den Spruchkörper insgesamt im Blick zu behalten. 2. Die Verfahrensökonomie gebietet es regelmäßig nicht, im Rahmen einer Vorabentscheidung durch den Spruchkörper nach Regel 334 lit. h) VerfO über die materielle Zulässigkeit von Klageänderungsanträgen (R. 263 VerfO) zu entscheiden, die auf Anträgen auf Änderung des Patents (R. 30 VerfO) beruhen. 3. Materielle Entscheidungen von dieser Tragweite sind regelmäßig dem Hauptverfahren, namentlich der mündlichen Verhandlung, insbesondere der Endentscheidung durch den Spruchkörper zu überlassen. |
Regel 263 VerfO. Klageänderungsanträge (R. 263 VerfO), die auf einem Antrag auf Änderung des Patents (R. 30 VerfO) beruhen. Vorabentscheidung nach durch den Spruchkörper nach Regel 334 lit. h) VerfO |
|
|
27/12/2024 |
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH v. Ona Patents SL |
UPC_CFI_99/2024 |
App_41756/2024 |
ORD_42984/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
R. 158 RoP, Security for costs |
|
|
27/12/2024 |
Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited v. Ona Patents SL |
UPC_CFI_100/2024 |
App_41418/2024 |
ORD_43125/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Security for costs, R. 158 RoP |
|
|
27/12/2024 |
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation |
UPC_CFI_164/2024 |
App_55923/2024 |
ORD_62910/2024 |
Application Rop 333 |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
1. The incorrect citation of the legal provisions upon which an application is grounded does not relieve the Court of its obligation to consider the motion where it is possible to identify the correct legal grounds based on the legal arguments and factual grounds put forward by the applicant in support of the application. 2. Where, after issuing an order granting a security for costs and any subsequent appeal, there is a change in the factual circumstances underlying the order, the party affected by the measure, as well as the party benefiting from it, may apply to the Court to revoke the order or vary its terms. Granting this opportunity to the parties, even in absence of a specific and direct legal provision, is necessary to render the measure consistent with its purpose, namely to address the risk of non-recovery or significant difficulty in recovering costs of the proceedings. 3. In a situation in which the security amount for costs has been specifically set with regard to the maximum recoverable costs, as determined by the value of the proceedings indicated by the claimant, the subsequent reduction of damages claimed is of no relevance to the determination of this value because the latter shall reflect the objective interest pursued by the claimant at the time of the filing of the action, according to Rule 370 (6) ‘RoP’, and any subsequent modifications to that interest are immaterial. |
value of the proceedings, security for costs |
|
|
27/12/2024 |
Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy |
UPC_CFI_164/2024 |
App_61655/2024 |
ORD_63208/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
1. Where the Court has already ordered a party to provide security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred or to be incurred by the opposing party, a subsequent request by this latter party for an additional security (compared to that already granted) shall be considered as request to modify the security already granted by increasing its amount. |
security for costs |
|
|
27/12/2024 |
Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_152/2024 |
App_47098/2024 |
ORD_54426/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
27/12/2024 |
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v. Syngenta Limited |
UPC_CoA_523/2024 |
APL_51115/2024 |
ORD_68137/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
26/12/2024 |
Advanced Bionics AG , Advanced Bionics Sarl v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmb |
UPC_CFI_338 /2023 UPC_CFI_410/2023 |
ACT_576555/2023 ACT_15513/2024 |
ORD_598503/2023 |
Revocation action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
1.In deference to the need for expeditious judgments and efficient proceedings, the Court may decide the case even by overturning the priority order of the issues to be decided where a determination can be made on the basis of a more easily resolvable reason - albeit logically subordinate - without examining those that are antecedent. 2. Although not a party to the proceedings, the inventor of the patent at suit cannot be examined as a witness or expert because he/she may have a direct interest in the outcome of the case and does not meet the requirements of Rule 181 (1) (a) and (b) ‘RoP’ for impartiality, objectivity and independence. |
insufficiency of the disclosure, added matter, lack of inventive step |
|
|
24/12/2024 |
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v. Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH |
UPC_CFI_244/2024 UPC_CFI_609/2024 |
App_67921/2024 |
ORD_68003/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. The second deadline extension was granted as an exception. 2. The plaintiff's representative was instructed to provide further credible evidence of the alleged health impairments on the very day of the extended deadline. |
prima facie evidence |
|
|
24/12/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_213/2023 UPC_CFI_220/2023 UPC_CFI_224/2023 |
App_67725/2024 |
ORD_67967/2024 |
- |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Die Rücknahmeanträge werden zugelassen. 2. Die Verfahren betreffend die Klagen ACT_545562/2023, ACT_545619/2023, ACT_546092/2023 sowie die Widerklagen CC_3294/2024, CC_3276/2024, CC_3300/2024, CC_3301/2024, CC_3304/2024, CC_3308/2024, CC_3274/2024, CC_3297/2024, CC_3305/2024, CC_3450/2024, CC_3458/2024, CC_3469/2024, CC_3452/2024, CC_3457/2024, CC_3470/2024, CC_3459/2024, CC_3465/2024, CC_3460/2024, CC_3455/2024, CC_3299/2024, CC_2861/2024, CC_2879/2024, CC_2870/2024, CC_2874/2024, CC_2860/2024, CC_2867/2024, CC_2895/2024, CC_2863/2024, CC_2877/2024, CC_2871/2024 werden für beendet erklärt. 3. Diese Entscheidung ist in das Register aufzunehmen. 4. Jede Partei trägt ihre Kosten selbst, zwischen den Parteien erfolgt keine Kostenerstattung. 5. Die jeweilige Klagepartei bzw. Widerklagepartei erhält eine anteilige Rückerstattung der Gerichtsgebühren gem. R. 370.9(b)(ii) VerfO von jeweils 40 Prozent. 6. Die Streitwerte der Klagen und Widerklagen werden jeweils auf 4 Mio. € festgesetzt. Die Beklagten haben jeweils eine einheitliche Widerklage eingereicht. |
Regel 265 VerfO, Gebührenerstattung, Regel 370.9 VerfO, Klagerücknahme |
|
|
23/12/2024 |
Insulet Corporation v. A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. |
UPC_CFI_380/2024 |
App_58027/2024 |
ORD_59988/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
request for payment of costs in intervention proceedings |
application to intervene - intervention - intervene - costs |
|
|
23/12/2024 |
Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, Memodo GmbH, PowerDeal SRL v. Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH |
UPC_CFI_336/2024 UPC_CFI_605/2024 |
App_57498/2024 |
ORD_57608/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
23/12/2024 |
Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy |
UPC_CoA_826/2024 |
APL_67135/2024 |
ORD_67910/2024 |
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
23/12/2024 |
TIRU v. MAGUIN SAS |
UPC_CFI_813/2024 |
66560/2024 |
ORD_67655/2024 |
Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
French |
|
|
|
|
|
23/12/2024 |
TIRU v. VALINEA ENERGIE |
UPC_CFI_814/2024 |
66573/2024 |
ORD_ 67654/2024 |
Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
French |
|
|
|
|
|
23/12/2024 |
PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico |
UPC_CFI_336/2024 UPC_CFI_607/2024 |
App_59980/2024 |
ORD_60319/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
Differentiation between R. 262 RoP and R. 262A RoP, Confidentiality |
|
|
23/12/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings v. Guangdong OPPO, OROPE |
UPC_CFI_208/2024 UPC_CFI_221/2024 UPC_CFI_225/2024 |
App_67435/2024 |
ORD_67681/2024 |
- |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
23/12/2024 |
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE |
UPC_CFI_52/2023 |
App_66647/2024 |
ORD_67711/2024 |
- |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
23/12/2024 |
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation |
UPC_CoA_826/2024 |
App_67329/2024 |
ORD_67915/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
20/12/2024 |
pharma-aktiva GmbH, Hofer Kommanditgesellschaft, ALDI Nord Deutschland Stiftung & Co. KG, ALDI SE & Co. KG, ALDI SÜD Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. oHG v. G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG |
UPC_CFI_541/2024 |
- |
ORD_67522/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
20/12/2024 |
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O. |
UPC_CoA_405/2024 |
APL_40553/2024 |
ORD_60221/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
1. A linguistic error, a spelling mistake or any other inaccuracy in a patent claim can only be corrected by way of interpretation of the patent claim if the existence of an error and the precise way to correct it are sufficiently certain to the average skilled person on the basis of the patent claim, taking into account the description and the drawings and using common general knowledge. 2. The patent claim must be interpreted from the perspective of the person skilled in the art. The applicant’s assertions during the grant proceedings, and in particular the TBA’s endorsement thereof, can be seen as an indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date. |
Relevance of the applicant’s assertions and the TBA’s endorsement thereof during grant proceedings for the interpretation of patent claims, Error in a patent claim, Appeal, Patent claim interpretation, Provisional measures |
|
|
20/12/2024 |
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. |
UPC_CoA_402/2024 |
APL_40470/2024 |
ORD_60219/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
1. A linguistic error, a spelling mistake or any other inaccuracy in a patent claim can only be corrected by way of interpretation of the patent claim if the existence of an error and the precise way to correct it are sufficiently certain to the average skilled person on the basis of the patent claim, taking into account the description and the drawings and using common general knowledge. 2. The patent claim must be interpreted from the perspective of the person skilled in the art. The applicant’s assertions during the grant proceedings, and in particular the TBA’s endorsement thereof, can be seen as an indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date. |
Patent claim interpretation, Appeal, Provisional measures, Error in a patent claim |
|
|
20/12/2024 |
HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG v. PHOENIX CONTACT, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico ILME |
UPC_CFI_342/2024 |
App_56734/2024 |
ORD_57040/2024 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
20/12/2024 |
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Vizgen, Inc. |
UPC_CFI_22/2023 |
App_62866/2024 |
ORD_62955/2024 |
Application Rop 333 |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Nach Regel 30.2 VerfO werden weitere Anträge auf Änderung des Patentes nur mit Erlaubnis des Gerichts zugelassen. Eine Zulassung scheidet aus, wenn zwischen dem behaupteten Grund für die Antragsänderung und der Einreichung des Antrags ungefähr drei Monate liegen. Auf die Sichtweise des Patentinhabers kommt es bei der Beurteilung der Frage einer möglichen Verfahrensverzögerung nicht an. |
weiterer Antrag auf Änderung des Patents, R 30.2 VerfO |
|
DE
EN
FR