|
30/04/2024 |
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Italy srl |
UPC_CFI_255/2023 |
ORD_24620/2024 |
Generic Procedural Application into a Revocation Action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
The Court has the discretionary powers to admit an amend of the patent even after a previous application to amend that patent has been submitted and after the closing of the written procedure; however, the admission of this subsequent request must not prejudice the other party’s right to defence. |
subsequent request to amend the patent; permission of the Court; closing of the written procedure; additional defence |
|
|
29/04/2024 |
10x Genomics, Inc. v. Curio Bioscience Inc. |
|
ORD_23544/2024 |
Application for provisional measures |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. Ist eine Person bei einem Europäischen Patent im jeweiligen nationalen Register als Patentinhaber eingetragen, besteht eine widerlegbare Vermutung dafür, dass die im jeweiligen nationalen Register eingetragene Person zur Eintragung berechtigt ist (R. 8.5 (c) VerfO). Eine solche gesetzliche Vermutung hat hinsichtlich der vermuteten Tatsache eine Umkehr der Darlegungs- und Beweislast zur Folge. Kann der Antragsteller auf seine Eintragung in den für den jeweiligen Rechtsstreit maßgeblichen Registern verweisen, ist es an der Antragsgegnerseite, darzulegen und gegebenenfalls zu beweisen, dass dem Antragsteller die Berechtigung für eine solche Eintragung fehlt. 2. Enthält ein Patentanspruch Zweckangaben, dienen diese üblicherweise dem besseren Verständnis der Erfindung. Sie haben im Regelfall mittelbar die Wirkung, den durch das Patent geschützten Gegenstand dahingehend zu definieren, dass er nicht nur die räumlich-körperlichen Merkmale erfüllen, sondern auch ausgebildet sein muss, um für den im Patentanspruch angegebenen Zweck verwendbar zu sein. 3. Fehlt es an einer positiven Kenntnis des Antragstellers von einer Schutzrechtsverletzung, steht einer solchen Kenntnis eine grob fahrlässige Unkenntnis oder das bewusste Verschließen der Augen vor einer Schutzrechtsverletzung gleich. Eine allgemeine Marktbeobachtungspflicht des Patentinhabers besteht nicht. Sobald der Schutzrechtsinhaber jedoch konkrete Umstände kennt, die eine Verletzung seines Schutzrechts naheliegend erscheinen lassen, ist von ihm zu erwarten, dass er alle ihm ohne Weiteres zur Verfügung stehenden Maßnahmen ergreift und die Sachlage weiter aufklärt. Die Darlegung derartiger, eine Aufklärungspflicht auslösender Umstände obliegt der Antragsgegnerseite. 4. Während Art. 69 Abs. 4 EPÜ lediglich die Leistung einer Prozesskostensicherheit des Klägers vorsieht, erweitert R. 158 VerfO den Kreis der Adressaten einer solchen Anordnung auf „die Parteien“ und damit auch den Beklagten. In Eilverfahren besteht für eine (analoge) Anwendung der Norm vor dem Hintergrund des Eilcharakters derartiger Verfahren weder Raum noch im Hinblick auf R. 211.1 (d) VerfO ein Bedürfnis. |
Eilbedürftigkeit, Zweckangaben, Aktivlegitimation, fahrlässige Unkenntnis, Vermutung, Register, Prozesskostensicherheit, Kenntnis der Verletzung, Interessenabwägung |
|
|
26/04/2024 |
AIM Sport Vision AG v. Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited |
|
ORD_23089/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
An ambiguity arising when reading Article 62 UPCA and Rules 220.1(c) and 224.1(b) RoP together, in combination with incorrect, or at least incomplete, information provided by the Court of First Instance, has led the appellant to believe that a two months’ time period applied for an appeal of an order. The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations requires that the appellant under the exceptional circumstances of this case is allowed to rely on the information provided by the Court of First Instance that the applicable time period for lodging the Statement of appeal was two months, when in fact it was 15 days. |
Time period for lodging a Statement of appeal pursuant to R.220.1(c) RoP in conjunction with Art. 62 UPCA |
|
|
25/04/2024 |
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v. Toyota Motor Europe |
|
ORD_18484/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
24/04/2024 |
Nicoventures Trading Limited v. NJOY Netherlands B.V and Juul Labs International Inc. |
UPC_CFI_316/2023 |
ORD_587436/2023 |
Application RoP262.1(b) into a Revocation Action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
23/04/2024 |
Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated |
UPC_CFI_515/2023 |
ORD_12476/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Request for security for legal costs by defendant. |
security, Art. 69.4, legal costs |
|
|
23/04/2024 |
Volkswagen AG |
UPC_CFI_515/2023 |
ORD_12491/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Request for security for legal costs by defendant. |
security, Art. 69.4, legal costs |
|
|
23/04/2024 |
AUDI AG |
UPC_CFI_515/2023 |
ORD_12232/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Request for security for legal costs by defendant. |
security, Art. 69.4, legal costs |
|
|
23/04/2024 |
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH |
UPC_CFI_515/2023 |
ORD_12488/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Request for security for legal costs by defendant. |
security, Art. 69.4, legal costs |
|
|
23/04/2024 |
AUDI AG, Volkswagen AG |
UPC_CFI_514/2023 |
ORD_12227/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Request for security for legal costs by defendant. |
security, Art. 69.4, legal costs |
|
|
23/04/2024 |
AUDI AG |
UPC_CFI_515/2023 |
ORD_12484/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Request for security for legal costs by defendant. |
security, Art. 69.4, legal costs |
|
|
23/04/2024 |
AUDI AG |
UPC_CFI_515/2023 |
ORD_17417/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Request for security for legal costs by defendant. |
security, Art. 69.4, legal costs |
|
|
23/04/2024 |
Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc. |
|
ORD_22211/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. As Germany has issued an indication within the meaning of Rule 14.2 (c) RoP, the judge-rapporteur may, in the interest of the panel, issue an order to the effect that the judges may, inter alia, issue and deliver any decision and order in German together with a certified translation into English within the meaning of Rule 118.8 RoP. 2. If the language of the proceedings is changed to English after the oral hearing and immediately before the final order is issued, the judge-rapporteur may make use of this possibility in order to ensure that the Application for provisional measures can be decided immediately. |
Application for provisional measures, language change, language of the proceedings, indication; Rule 14.2 (c) RoP, certified translation |
|
|
22/04/2024 |
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH |
|
ORD_5343/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Hat eine Nichtigkeitswiderklage Erfolg, wird das Streitpatent rückwirkend für nichtig erklärt. Dadurch verliert auch ein einfacher Lizenznehmer seine Vorzugsstellung gegenüber Nicht-Lizenznehmern. Er kann daher dem Rechtsstreit auf Klägerseite beitreten und versuchen, eine solche Nichtigerklärung zu verhindern. 2. Hat sich eine Lokalkammer dazu entschieden, sowohl über die Verletzungsklage als auch über die Nichtigkeitswiderklage zu verhandeln, entscheidet sie auf der Grundlage einer einheitlichen Auslegung sowohl über die Verletzungsfrage als auch über den Rechtsbestand. In einer solchen Konstellation kann der Lizenznehmer nicht nur isoliert der Nichtigkeitswiderklage, sondern dem gesamten Rechtsstreit beitreten. |
Zulässigkeit der Streithilfe, rechtliches Interesse, einfache Lizenz, einfacher Lizenznehmer, Verletzungsklage, isolierter Beitritt, Streithilfe, Lizenznehmer, Nichtigkeitswiderklage |
|
|
18/04/2024 |
Daedalus Prime LLC v. Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. |
|
ORD_20986/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
17/04/2024 |
Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc. |
|
ORD_18194/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
15/04/2024 |
Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics Sarl |
|
ORD_13321/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1-An application according to Art. 49 (5) UPCA and Rule 323.1 RoP can be made at any time until the Statement of Defence has to be lodged according to Rule 23 RoP. Should the different options offered by the RoP be provided with the purpose to reach an agreement on the language to be used before forwarding the request to the President of the CFI, this interpretation is not in contradiction with such aim as within the time-limit laid down in the RoP to lodge the Statement of Defence, it remains possible to file a procedural application pursuant R. 321 or 322 RoP and later on refer to R. 323. – 2. The decision whether or not to change the language of the proceedings into the language in which the patent was granted shall be determined with regard to the respective interests at stake, a fairness issue can occur if one party compared to the other(s), is remarkably disadvantaged by the conditions in which it has to organize its defence due to the language of the proceedings, strategical choices relating to the constitution of the team, although influencing the general management of the cases, is not obviously affecting the conditions under which the defence is exercised. |
language of the proceedings – admissibility and merits of the Application. |
|
|
15/04/2024 |
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v. Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH |
|
ORD_18121/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
11/04/2024 |
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v. VitalAire GmbH, Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V, Dinno Santé s.a.i. |
|
ORD_13986/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
(1) Pursuant to Art. 49 (2) UPCA the Contracting States may designate one or more official languages of the European Patent Office as language of proceedings of their local divisions in addition to an official language of the European Union which is an official language of the Contracting State in whose territory the local division Düsseldorf is located (Art. 49 (1) UPCA). The Federal Republic of Germany has made use of this possibility and has authorised English as an official language of the European Patent Office in addition to German as an official language of the European Union. (2) Pursuant to Rule 14.2(a) RP the applicant may choose either of the two languages mentioned as the language of proceedings. (3) Rule 14.2(b)(4) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the proceedings are to be conducted in the official language of the defendant where a provision of the Member State having more than one official language so provides and, where there are two or more defendants with different official languages, the applicant may choose the language from among the official languages concerned. According to the wording of the provision, the official language means the official language of the Contracting State. The Federal Republic of Germany does not provide for any official languages within the meaning of this Rule other than German, in particular English. 4 Pursuant to Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Procedure, a party may also submit a document in paper form to the Registry or to a branch of the Registry which cannot be filed electronically because the electronic case management system of the Court is no longer functioning. For this purpose, the document must be delivered to the premises of the sub-registry or the document must reach the sub-registry by other means within the time limit. |
Language of the proceedings, Overnight letter box |
|
|
11/04/2024 |
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v. Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. |
|
ORD_13996/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Pursuant to Art. 49 (2) UPCA the contracting member states may designate one or more official languages of the European Patent Office as language of proceedings of their local divisions in addition to an official language of the European Union which is an official language of the contracting member state in whose territory the local division Düsseldorf is located (Art. 49 (1) UPCA). The Federal Republic of Germany has made use of this possibility and has admitted English as an official language of the European Patent Office in addition to German as an official language of the European Union. 2. Pursuant to Rule 14.2(a) RP the applicant may choose either of the two languages mentioned as the language of proceedings. 3. Rule 14.2(b)(4) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where the law of a Member State with more than one official language so provides, the proceedings are to be conducted in the official language of the defendant and that, where there are two or more defendants with different official languages, the applicant may choose a language from among the official languages concerned. According to the wording of the provision, the official language means the official language of the Contracting State. The Federal Republic of Germany does not provide for any official languages within the meaning of this Rule other than German, in particular English. 4. Pursuant to Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Procedure, a party may also submit a document in paper form to the Registry or to a branch of the Registry which cannot be filed electronically because the electronic case management system of the Court is no longer functioning. For this purpose, the document must be delivered to the premises of the sub-registry or the document must otherwise reach the sub-registry within the time limit. |
Overnight letter box, Official language |
|
|
11/04/2024 |
SVF Holdco v. ICPillar LLC |
|
ORD_18817/2024 |
Preliminary objection |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
11/04/2024 |
Neo Wireless v.Toyota Motor Europe |
|
ORD_19643/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
If an appeal is lodged under R.220.2 RoP and leave is granted in the impugned order itself, the Statement of appeal must be lodged within 15 days of service of that order containing the decision to grant leave. If the decision to grant leave to appeal is contained in a separate order on a request to that effect (which separate order must be issued within 15 days of the impugned order, cf R.220.3 RoP), the Statement of appeal has to be lodged within 15 days from the date of service of this separate order containing the decision to grant leave to appeal. |
Time period for filing a Statement of appeal under R.220.2 RoP |
|
|
10/04/2024 |
Ocado Innovation Limited v. *** |
|
ORD_19369/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
- Art. 9(1) UPCA must be interpreted such that if the subject matter of the appeal proceedings is of a non-technical nature only, and there are no technical issues at stake, the Court of Appeal may decide the matter without the need to assign two technically qualified judges to its panel of three legally qualified judges. This is without prejudice to the fact that once technically qualified judges have been assigned, they will, as judges, have to deal with the entire dispute, including the non-technical aspects thereof. - When a request to make written pleadings and evidence available to a member of the public is made pursuant to R.262.1(b) RoP, the interests of a member of the public of getting access to the written pleadings and evidence must be weighed against the interests mentioned in Art. 45 UPCA. These interests include the protection of confidential information and personal data (’the interest of one of the parties or other affected persons’) but are not limited thereto. The general interest of justice and public order also have to be taken into account. The general interest of justice includes the protection of the integrity of proceedings. - A reasoned request under R.262.1(b) RoP is not the same, and has to be distinguished from, an application under R.262.3 RoP. |
Public access to written pleadings and evidence, R.262.1(b) RoP, Composition of the panel of the Court of Appeal, Art. 9(1) UPCA |
|
|
09/04/2024 |
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v. Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH |
|
ORD_13918/2024 |
Request to review an order ex-parte |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
09/04/2024 |
Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Shamrock Mobile GmbH |
|
ORD_18690/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
EN
DE