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


288 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
19/06/2024 Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. vs. Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. UPC_CFI_130/2024 ORD_30434/2024 Application for provisional measures Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division English Sufficient interest in this case despite unilateral cease-and-desist declaration (yes). Application is not devoid of purpose (R. 360 RoP). Competence for Ireland not contested. provisional measures; cease-and-desist declaration; legitimate interest; competence
19/06/2024 ICPillar LLC v. ARM UPC_CoA_301/2024 ORD_36664/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
18/06/2024 Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL UPC_CFI_99/2024 ORD_27452/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German 1. A Generic procedural application to change the language of the proceedings using the “R. 9 RoP workflow” is admissible according to R. 4.1 RoP, although it is supposed to be submitted in the form of another specific workflow dedicated to this purpose in the Case Management System (CMS). 2. For a claimant, having had the choice of language of the patent, with the ensuing possibility that the claimant/patentee may have to conduct legal proceedings in that language, as a general rule and absent specific relevant circumstances pointing in another direction, the language of the patent as the language of the proceedings cannot be considered to be unfair in respect of the claimant. 3. The language skills of the contact person likely to follow-up the proceedings on behalf of the Claimant (being a Spanish medium-sized entity) and the existence of parallel proceedings handled in German with limited internal resources compared to those of the Defendants – equipped to handle and coordinate international patents disputes that are assigned to an experienced legal department – are relevant reasons to file an action in German although the language of the patent and relating technology is English. Even if the language skills of the representatives cannot compensate the situation of the parties themselves in this respect, the existence of considerable means remains a relevant factor to be taken into account in the balancing of interests. wrong workflow, language skills of a contact person, admissibility, language skills of representatives, language change request, existence of parallel proceedings
18/06/2024 Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited UPC_CFI_100/2024 ORD_27765/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German 1. A Generic procedural application to change the language of the proceedings using the “R. 9 RoP workflow” is admissible according to R. 4.1 RoP, although it is supposed to be submitted in the form of another specific workflow dedicated to this purpose in the Case Management System (CMS). 2. For a claimant, having had the choice of language of the patent, with the ensuing possibility that the claimant/patentee may have to conduct legal proceedings in that language, as a general rule and absent specific relevant circumstances pointing in another direction, the language of the patent as the language of the proceedings cannot be considered to be unfair in respect of the claimant. 3. The language skills of the contact person likely to follow-up the proceedings on behalf of the Claimant (being a Spanish medium-sized entity) and the existence of parallel proceedings handled in German with limited internal resources compared to those of the Defendants – equipped to handle and coordinate international patents disputes that are assigned to an experienced legal department – are relevant reasons to file an action in German although the language of the patent and relating technology is English. Even if the language skills of the representatives cannot compensate the situation of the parties themselves in this respect, the existence of considerable means remains a relevant factor to be taken into account in the balancing of interests. wrong workflow, language skills of a contact person, admissibility, language skills of representatives, language change request, existence of parallel proceedings
17/06/2024 M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v. Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi UPC_CFI_316/2024 ORD_36068/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German Gemäß Regel 271.5 (a) VerfO kann die Zustellung an jedem Ort innerhalb der Vertragsmitgliedsstaaten erfolgen, an dem die Gesellschaft oder andere juristische Person einen dauerhaften oder vorübergehenden Geschäftssitz hat. Letzteres kann bei einem Messestand der Fall sein, wenn dort – wie im Regelfall – zumindest auch für Lieferungen geworben wird. Messezustellung, Vertragsmitgliedstaaten
17/06/2024 Volkswagen AG UPC_CoA_222/2024 ORD_36276/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
17/06/2024 AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_278/2024 ORD_36287/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
17/06/2024 Volkswagen AG UPC_CoA_220/2024 ORD_36281/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
17/06/2024 Volkswagen AG UPC_CoA_218/2024 ORD_36285/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
17/06/2024 AUDI AG UPC_CoA_219/2024 ORD_36283/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
17/06/2024 AUDI AG UPC_CoA_221/2024 ORD_36278/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
13/06/2024 Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock UPC_CFI_219/2023 ORD_35648/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
12/06/2024 Samsung v Headwater UPC_CFI_54/2024 ORD_30693/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German Change of language request granted. Rule 323 RoP, change language, Art. 49.5 UPCA
06/06/2024 Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v. Bhagat Textile Engineers UPC_CFI_241/2023 ORD_598364/2023 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division Italian    
04/06/2024 Nera Innovations Ltd. v Xiaomi UPC_CoA_205/2024 ORD_31569/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
04/06/2024 Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH UPC_CFI_54/2023 ORD_28831/2024 Procedural Order Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division German    
04/06/2024 Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v. Toyota Motor Europe UPC_CoA_79/2024 ORD_30505/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
04/06/2024 Daedalus Prime LLC v. Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. UPC_CoA_183/2024 ORD_31567/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
30/05/2024 Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. UPC_CFI_26/2024 ORD_25299/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German The circumstances relate to the specific case and the position of the parties result in a change of language to English. The existence of parallel proceedings in other countries does not appear to be relevant in a case where each party is confronted with similar issues arising from these ongoing disputes. language of proceeding
28/05/2024 Carrier Corporation v. BITZER Electronics A/S UPC_CoA_22/2024 ORD_25123/2024 Appeal RoP220.2 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English 1. Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP must be applied and interpreted in accordance with the fundamental right to an effective legal remedy and a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, to the extent that European Union Law is concerned, Article 47 of the Charter. These provisions must also be applied and interpreted in accordance with Articles 41(3), 42 and 52(1) UPCA on the basis of the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity (point 2 of the Preamble of the RoP). 2. In accordance with these principles, proceedings must be conducted in a way which will normally allow the final oral hearing at first instance to take place within one year whilst recognizing that complex actions may require more time and procedural steps, and simple actions less time and fewer procedural steps (point 7 of the Preamble of the RoP). Case management must be organized in accordance with this objective (point 7 of the Preamble of the RoP). It follows that, as a general principle, the Court will not stay proceedings. Otherwise, the Court cannot ensure that the final oral hearing will normally take place within one year. 3. The mere fact that the revocation proceedings before the UPC relate to a patent which is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO is not sufficient to allow an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay proceedings. The Convention on the Grant of European Patents and the UPCA allow third parties to challenge the validity of a patent in both opposition and revocation proceedings and allow them to initiate revocation proceedings while opposition proceedings relating to the same patent are pending. 4. The principle of avoiding irreconcilable decisions does not require that the UPC always stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings. Firstly, decisions in which the UPC and EPO issue different rulings on the revocation of a European patent are not irreconcilable. Where one body upholds the patent and the other revokes it, the latter decision will prevail. Secondly, the interests of harmonising decisions on the validity of a European patent can be promoted by ensuring that the body that decides last can take the decision of the body that decides first into account in its decision. That means that the interests of harmonisation in general do not require a stay by the UPC where it can be expected that the UPC will issue its decision first. 5. Pursuant to Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP, an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings applies when a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO. The terms “rapid” and “rapidly” in these provisions must be interpreted in the light of the principles set out above and the relevant circumstances of the case, such as the stage of the opposition proceedings and the stage of the revocation proceedings. The term “may” in Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP means that the Court has a discretionary power to stay the proceedings when a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO. Whether or not a stay is granted depends on the balance of the interests of the parties. 6. The mere fact that the EPO has granted a request to accelerate the opposition proceedings is not sufficient to stay revocation proceedings before the UPC. Rule 298 RoP provides that the Court may stay its proceedings “in accordance with Rule 295(a) RoP” pending accelerated opposition proceedings. Therefore, in that situation the same criterion applies, namely the requirement of Rule 295(a) RoP that the decision in the opposition proceedings may be expected to be given rapidly. Obviously, acceleration is relevant to the assessment, since the pace of the proceedings determines when the decision of the EPO can be expected. Acceleration as such is however not sufficient for establishing the expectation of a rapid decision within the meaning of Rule 295(a) RoP. Stay of revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings, Accelerated opposition proceedings, Appeal
27/05/2024 NEC Corporation v TCL TCT UPC_CFI_498/2023 ORD_26434/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English Request to shorten deadlines rejected. Request to extend deadlines granted. request to extend deadlines, wrong appendixes, request to shorten deadlines
22/05/2024 Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v Network Systems Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_223/2024 ORD_29608/2024 Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
22/05/2024 Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v Network Systems Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_225/2023 ORD_29621/2024 Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
22/05/2024 Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v Network Systems Technologies LLC UPC_CoA_224/2024 ORD_29615/2024 Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
22/05/2024 Volkswagen AG v. Network System Technologies UPC_CoA_225/2023 ORD_29903/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
1 2 3 ... 12