|
30/07/2024 |
BEGO Medical GmbH v. CEAD USA B.V., CEAD B.V. |
UPC_CFI_367/2023 |
ORD_39244/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
German |
|
|
R 262A, R 262 (2 |
|
|
30/07/2024 |
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. |
UPC_CoA_405/2024 |
ORD_44368/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
30/07/2024 |
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. |
UPC_CoA_402/2024 |
ORD_44363/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
29/07/2024 |
BITZER Electronics A/S v. Carrier Corporation |
UPC_CFI_263/2023 |
ORD_598395/2023 |
Revocation Action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
29/07/2024 |
NEC Corporation v. TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd. |
UPC_CoA_70/2024 |
|
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
29/07/2024 |
Powell Gilbert LLP |
UPC_CFI_131/2024 |
ORD_39938/2024 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
English |
|
Public access to the register granted (R. 262.1 RoP). Application of criteria set forth in Ocado v AutoStore (ORD_19369/2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023). |
leave to appeal, public access to the register |
|
|
29/07/2024 |
Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd |
UPC_CoA_1/2024 |
ORD_38645/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
29/07/2024 |
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A. |
UPC_CFI_14/2023 |
ORD_43914/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
The infringement proceedings are stayed pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation decision. |
stay of proceedings, Rule 37.4 RoP, Rule 295(m) RoP |
|
|
26/07/2024 |
CANÈ S.p.A. v. FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE |
UPC_CFI_419/2023 |
ORD_43695/2024 |
Generic order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
French |
|
|
|
|
|
26/07/2024 |
Jef Nelissen v. Vivisol B BV, OrthoApnea S.L. |
UPC_430/2024 |
ORD_43804/2024 |
Application Rop 223 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
Dutch |
|
|
|
|
|
26/07/2024 |
Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, ARM Limited, Arm France SAS, SVF Holdco, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited v. ICPillar LLC |
UPC_CoA_301/2024 |
ORD_43826/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
26/07/2024 |
Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, ARM Limited, Arm France SAS, SVF Holdco, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited v. ICPillar LLC |
UPC_CoA_301/2024 |
ORD_36755/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
26/07/2024 |
Valeo Electrification v. Magna |
UPC_CFI_347/2024 |
ORD_42132/2024 |
Amend Document |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. The scope of R. 263 RoP is not limited to the main proceedings. It also applies to applications for provisional measures. The applicant may also apply for leave to change its claim or to amend its case. 2. If the applicant adds a feature to its claims which was previously only “alternatively” claimed, this narrows the scope of a possible preliminary injunction or other preliminary measures. Embodiments which satisfy all the other features but not the now added feature are no longer covered by a possible preliminary injunction. This is therefore a limitation of the claim. If this limitation is unconditional, R. 263.3 RoP applies. |
unconditionally limitation, Leave to change claim, scope of R. 263 RoP, application for provisional measures, limitation of a claim, features alternatively |
|
|
26/07/2024 |
Abbott Diabetes v. Sibio, Umedwings |
UPC_CoA_382/2024 |
ORD_43746/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
25/07/2024 |
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v. Roche Diabetes Care GmbH |
UPC_CFI_88/2024 |
ORD_36444/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
When deciding on a request to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent was granted, all relevant circumstances relating to the case and to the position of the parties shall be taken into account. If the outcome of balancing of interests is equal – here both parties being international companies operating worldwide – the position of the defendant is the decisive factor. |
Change of the language of the proceedings , R. 323 RoP |
|
|
25/07/2024 |
Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH |
UPC_CFI_169/2024 |
ORD_43090/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. The fact that coordination with suppliers based outside Europe, whose components are at the heart of the infringement allegation, is necessary, regularily does not constitute a convincing reason for an exceptional extension of a time limit. 2. Restrictive confidentiality obligations, which are imposed on a defendant, do typically not justify an extension as the RoP do provide especially for that purpose a possibility for the protection of confidential information in R. 262A RoP |
Extension of Time limits, R. 9.3, R. 23, R. 271.6 (b) |
|
|
25/07/2024 |
WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH |
UPC_CFI_159/2024 |
ORD_43151/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
submission of a physical exhibit under the current CMS |
physical exhibit |
|
|
24/07/2024 |
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. Laser Components SAS |
UPC_CFI_440/2023 |
ORD_41423/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
French |
|
1. Dans le cadre de l'article 33 (4) AJUB, les parties au litige doivent être les mêmes dans les deux instances, peu importe leurs positions procédurales, le demandeur peut être défendeur dans la seconde et vice-versa et ce, dans le but d’éviter que plusieurs divisions soient saisies de la question de la validité du même brevet par les mêmes parties, dans un but d’efficacité, d’économie des moyens et pour éviter le risque de décisions irréconciliables au sein de la JUB. 2. La Cour relève aussi que tant l’article 33.4 de l’UPCA [AJUB] que la règle 118.2 du RdP sont des règles spéciales et autonomes spécifiques à la compétence interne au sein des divisions de la JUB. Pourtant, il est pertinent pour interpréter la notion de « mêmes parties » de raisonner par analogie avec les règles de compétence entre les différentes juridictions au sein de l’UE en matière de « lis pendens » (Règlements de Bruxelles I). 3. En outre, la Cour, plus généralement quand elle statue sur une demande de sursis (règle 295 (g) et (m) RdP), doit prendre en compte, au vu du principe directeur d’efficacité du règlement de procédure de la JUB (préambule point 7), l’état de la procédure respective au sein des deux divisions concernées pour décider s’il est opportun d’attendre la décision de la Division Centrale de Paris sur la question de la compétence. |
compétence interne au sein des divisions de la JUB, Intervention, compétence interne au sein des divisions de la JUB, R. 118.2 RdP, R. 118.2 RdP, Intervention, Identité des parties |
|
|
23/07/2024 |
Himson Engineering Private Limited v. Oerlikon textiles GmbH & Co KG |
UPC_CFI_240/2023 |
ORD_28787/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
Italian |
|
|
|
|
|
23/07/2024 |
Oerlikon textiles GmbH & Co KG v. Himson Engineering Private Limited |
UPC_CFI_240/2023 |
ORD_40568/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
Italian |
|
|
|
|
|
23/07/2024 |
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v. AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A |
UPC_CoA_177/2024 |
ORD_36778/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
1. An application for the preservation of evidence or inspection of premises within the meaning of Article 60 UPCA and Rules 192 et seq. RoP implies a request to disclose to the applicant the outcome of the measures, including the report written by the person who carried out the measures. This follows from the fact that the legitimate purpose of the measures is the use of the evidence in proceedings on the merits of the case (Rules 196.2 and 199.2 RoP), which includes the use of the evidence to decide whether to initiate proceedings on the merits and to determine whether and to what extent the evidence will be submitted in these proceedings. Disclosure of the evidence to the applicant or to certain persons acting on behalf of the applicant is indispensable for that purpose. Moreover, Rules 196.1 and 199.1 RoP provide that the Court may decide in its order that the evidence shall be disclosed to certain named persons and shall be subject to appropriate terms of non-disclosure. This confirms that the procedure initiated by an application under Article 60 UPCA aims at not merely the preservation of evidence and the inspection of premises as such, but also at the disclosure of the evidence to the applicant. 2. However, the granting of an application for preservation of evidence or inspection of premises does not imply an unconditional order to disclose the evidence to the applicant. Pursuant to Article 60(1) UPCA the order must be subject to the protection of confidential information (see also Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, hereinafter: Directive 2004/48/EC). Where the evidence may contain confidential information, this entails that the Court must hear the other party before deciding whether and to what extent to disclose the evidence to the applicant. In this context, the Court must give the other party access to the evidence and must provide that party with the opportunity to request the Court to keep certain information confidential and to provide reasons for such confidentiality. If the other party makes such a confidentiality request, the Court must provide the applicant with the opportunity to respond in a manner that respects the potential confidentiality interests of the other party. The Court may do this, for example, by granting access only to the representatives of the applicant whom the Court, pursuant to Rule 196.3(a) RoP, has authorised to be present during the execution of the measures and subject to appropriate terms of non-disclosure. 3. The opportunity for the other party to make a confidentiality request must be distinguished from the remedies available against the order for the preservation of evidence or the inspection of premises, such as the review of an order for preservation of evidence without hearing the defendant pursuant to Rule 197.3 RoP. Therefore, the Court must hear the other party on the request for disclosure even if this party has decided not to file a remedy against the order to preserve evidence or inspect premises. For the same reasons, the failure to apply for a review of an order for the preservation of evidence or for the inspection of premises, cannot not be considered as a tacit approval of the disclosure of evidence. 4. Pursuant to Article 60(8) UPCA the Court shall ensure that measures to preserve evidence or to inspect premises are revoked or otherwise cease to have effect, at the defendant’s request, if the applicant does not bring, within a period not exceeding 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is longer, action leading to a decision on the merits of the case before the Court (see also Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/48/EC and Article 50(6) of the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). Rules 198.1 and 199.2 RoP specify that the time period runs from the date specified in the Court’s order, taking into account the date when the report referred to in Rule 196.4 RoP is to be presented. These rules must be interpreted in the light of the purpose of the measures for the preservation of evidence or inspection of premises, which is to use the outcome of these measures in the proceedings on the merits of the case (Rules 196.2 and 199.2 RoP). In view of this, the Court must, as a general principle, specify in its order a time period that starts to run from the date of disclosure of the evidence to the applicant or from the date on which the Court has made a final decision not to grant the applicant access to the evidence. |
Time period to bring an action leading to a decision on the merits of the case, Measures to preserve evidence, Appeal, Protection of confidential information, Measures to inspect premises |
|
|
23/07/2024 |
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE |
UPC_CFI_75/2023-UPC_CFI_80/2023 |
ORD_42880/2024 |
Application Rop 333 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
22/07/2024 |
AYLO PREMIUM LTD |
UPC_CFI_471/2023 |
ORD_42880/2024 |
Application Rop 333 |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
22/07/2024 |
Hewlett-Packard, HP v. Dolby International AB |
UPC_CFI_457/2023 |
ORD_25519/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Sofern vom Gericht nichts anderes angeordnet wurde, wird der Streithelfer gemäß R. 315.4 VerfO als Partei behandelt. Auch für ihn gilt daher R. 262A.6 VerfO. Er hat deshalb einen Anspruch darauf, dass der Kreis der Zugangsberechtigten zu als geheimhaltungsbedürftig eingestuften Informatio-nen neben seinen Prozessbevollmächtigten mindestens eine natürliche Person umfasst. |
Geheimnisschutz; Parteien; Streithelfer; Zugangsbeschränkung; Kreis der Zugangsberechtigten; gestuftes Geheimnisschutzregime |
|
|
19/07/2024 |
OrthoApnea S.L. |
UPC_CFI_376/2023 |
ORD_42503/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division |
Dutch |
|
1. The review by the panel in the context of a review of a procedural decision made by the Judge-Rapporteur (R. 333 RoP) is limited to verifying whether the Judge-Rapporteur started from the correct facts, whether he assessed them correctly and whether he made his decision within the bounds of reasonableness. 2. A stay or suspension of time limits during the written phase can only in exceptional circumstances be granted. They can only be granted if proportionate and the balancing of interests of the parties warrants it. 3. Developing an equivalence argumentation in the Reply to Statement of Defence is in principle allowed provided if in line with (i) the normative purpose of Rule 13 RoP, (ii) the procedurally-evolutive conduct of the judicial dispute, and (iii) the rights of defence, in particular in this case the possibilities of defence for a party confronted with new arguments, facts and an amended petition on this basis, can be ensured. |
Herbeoordeling van Procedurele Beslissing (R. 333), Front Loaded procedure (R. 13), Equivalentie argumentatie |
|
DE
EN
FR
NL
IT