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 1er 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


465 résultats trouvés




Date
Parties
Numéro de l'affaire
Numéro de la décision ou de l'ordonnance
Type d'action
Juridiction - Division
Langue de procédure
Sommaire
Mots clés
Documents
Date Parties Numéro de l'affaire Numéro de la décision ou de l'ordonnance Type d'action Juridiction - Division Langue de procédure Details Sommaire Mots clés Documents
01/10/2024 Menarini v. Eoflow, Insulet UPC_CFI_380/2024 ORD_52068/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section English RoP 313 application to intervene - requirements -preliminary injunction application to intervene - intervention - intervene
30/09/2024 Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L v. Panasonic UPC_CoA_543/2024 ORD_53866/2024 Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
27/09/2024 Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy UPC_CFI_164/2024 ORD_45914/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English The Court may order a security for legal costs when the financial position of the respondent gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable and/or the likelihood that a possible order for costs by the Unified Patent Court may not, or in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable. burden of proof, security, costs
27/09/2024 AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_217/2024 ORD_53777/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
26/09/2024 Dolby International AB v. Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd. UPC_CFI_226/2024 ORD_53245/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German    
26/09/2024 Panasonic v. Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L UPC_CFI_220/2023 ORD_39681/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German Der Berichterstatter legt einen Antrag auf Aussetzung nach Regel 295 VerfO dem Spruchkörper zur Entscheidung vor. Vorlage an den Spruchkörper, R 102.1 VerfO, Aussetzungsantrag, R 295 VerfO, Berichterstatter
25/09/2024 Heraeus Electronics v. Vibrantz UPC_CFI_114/2024 Amend Document Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German Der Antrag auf Klageänderung ist nur zum Teil erfolgreich. R 263 VerfO, Klageänderung
25/09/2024 Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v. Vibrantz GmbH UPC_CFI_114/2024 ORD_53396/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German Die Nichtigkeitswiderklage kann auch gegen den eingetragenen Patentinhaber gerichtet werden. R 42, materieller Patentinhaber, R 25.1, R 361, eingetragener Patentinhaber, R 363, R 305.1(c), Nichtigkeitswiderklage
25/09/2024 Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH v. Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH UPC_CoA_182/2024 ORD_44387/2024 Appeal RoP220.1 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
25/09/2024 Innovative Sonic Corporation v. Lenovo, Motorola, Digital River UPC_CFI_340/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German   Übereinstimmender Antrag, R. 295 (d) VerfO, Aussetzung
25/09/2024 Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v. Valeo Electrification UPC_CFI_347/2024 ORD_53404/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English 1. Evidence in PI proceedings is generally and primarily to be submitted in writing (R. 170.1 (a) and (b) RoP), with particular importance being attached to the submission of affidavits (R. 170.2 (h) RoP). In addition, the submission of physical objects, in particular devices, products, em-bodiments, exhibits and models (R. 170.1 (c) RoP), and of electronic files and au-dio/video files (R. 170.1 (d) RoP) may be an option. 2.The Court does not summon witnesses in PI proceedings and does not provide simultaneous interpretation in this respect. PI proceedings, Summon of witnesses, R. 210.2 RoP, Evidence
24/09/2024 Eoflow v. Insulet UPC_CFI_380/2024 ORD_51234/2024 Application Rop 333 Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Central Division - Section English Article 340 RoP - concept of "panels" - conditions for joinder- issuing of order by the judge rapporteur connection joinder
24/09/2024 Unilever France v. I.G.B. S.r.l. UPC_CFI_494/2023 ORD_52883/2024 Amend Document Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division French 1. Pursuant R. 263 RoP, a party may only be authorized, by the Court, to change its claims, on the twofold condition that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage of the proceedings and that it is not such as to disturb in an unreasonable way the conduct of the case. 2. The autorisation given by the Court, under rule R. 263 RdP, only concerns changed claims which have the effect of changing the subject matter and the scope of the dispute. 3. Changed claims that only complete those previously made do not constitute substantial modifications, which are likely to modify and affect the subject matter and the scope of the dispute and only relate to the implementation and enforcement modalities of a possible sentence.  
23/09/2024 Erik Krahbichler, SWAT Medical AB v. Edwards Lifesciences, Meril UPC_CFI_189/2024 ORD_36092/2024 Application RoP262.1 (b) Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English 1. The mere fact of operating in the same field as the patent in dispute is not sufficient to establish a specific interest in the case documents on the part of the applicant. public access to register
20/09/2024 Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v. Valeo Electrification UPC_CFI_347/2024 ORD_52043/2024 Application RoP262A Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English    
18/09/2024 AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_264/2024 ORD_48996/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
18/09/2024 Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc. v. Ona Patents SL UPC_CoA_354/2024 ORD_48659/2024 Appeal RoP220.1 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
18/09/2024 Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v. Ona Patents SL UPC_CoA_349/2024 ORD_48660/2024 Appeal RoP220.1 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
18/09/2024 Erik Krahbichler v. Edwards Lifesciences, Meril, Smis UPC_CFI_8/2023 ORD_36466/2024 Application RoP262.1 (b) Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division English Article 45 UPCA means that also the written procedure of the Court shall, in principle, be open to the public unless the Court decides to make it confidential, to the extent necessary, in the interest of one of the parties or other affected persons, or in the general interest of justice or public order. If a person has made an application under Rule 262.1(b) for access to pleadings or evidence and provided a credible explanation for why he/she wants access, the application shall be approved unless it is necessary to keep the information confidential. RoP 262.1 (b)
17/09/2024 AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_217/2024 ORD_48916/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
17/09/2024 Dexcom International Limited UPC_CFI_424/2023 ORD_45345/2024 Amend Document Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division English Leave to amend counter claim with a declaration of non-infringement granted after withdrawal of the infringement claim against one device (of two). R. 263.2 RoP requirements complied with. amendment of claim
17/09/2024 Mala Technologies Ltd. v. Nokia Technology GmbH UPC_CoA_227/2024 ORD_43637/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
17/09/2024 Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy UPC_CFI_164/2024 ORD_41174/2024 Application Rop 333 Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English    
17/09/2024 Jef Nelissen v. OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV UPC_CFI_376/2023 ORD_598476/2023 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division Dutch The use of pleading notes and visual representations/aides at the oral hearing is permitted if they are communicated to the opposing party in a timely manner. The use of physical examples/models is permitted at the oral hearing if they are filed as an additional exhibit at the registry and if they are communicated to the opposing party. Whether or not a valuation is "sufficient" in the light of the possible recoverable costs (in application of R. 152.3. RoP) does not concern any factor to be taken into consideration in assessing the valuation of the case. Value of action, Oral Hearing, Interim Conference
17/09/2024 Microsoft Corporation v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy UPC_CFI_164/2024 ORD_43015/2024 Application Rop 333 Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English    
1 2 3 ... 19