This Month Year to Date All Time Custom
of 1000 results
Highlight search results
Danish
German
English
French
Italian
Dutch
Toggle Columns
Type
Order
Decision
Reference
Court Division
Brüssel
Brussels
Copenhagen
Den Haag
Düsseldorf
Hamburg
Helsinki
Lisbon
Lissabon
Luxembourg
Luxemburg
Mailand
Mannheim
Milan
München
Munich
Nordic Baltic Regional Division
Paris
The Hague
Vienna
Tags
30 January, 2024
Order
ORD _561/2023 Paris (FR) Local Div… EP3435866
R. 333 RoP
...

Please log in to add tags.

Please log in to add notes.

Please log in to add tags.

ORD _561/2023
UPC_CFI_230/2023
30 January, 2024
Order

Summary
(AI generated)

Parties

Dexcom, Inc.
v. Abbott Laboratories,
Abbott Diabetes Care inc,
Abbott France,
Abbott NV/SA,
Abbott B.V,
Abbott S.r.l,
Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag,
Abbott GmbH,
Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh,
Abbott Logistics B.V

Registry Information
Court Division:

Paris (FR) Local Division

Type of Action:

Infringement Action

Language of Proceedings:

EN

Patent at issue

EP3435866

Cited Legal Standards
R. 220.2 RoP
R. 262A R. 262.2 RoP
R. 262A RoP
R. 333 RoP
Rule 333 RoP
Add a custom note or summary to this decision
Styles
Text
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Bold ⌘B
Italic ⌘I
Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S
Bullet list
Ordered list
Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B
Insert link ⌘K
Insert link
Unlink
Align
Left
Center
Right

ORD _561/2023

Paris Local Division

UPC_CFI_230/2023 Procedural Order (Review R.333) of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 30/01/2024

APPLICANTS

  1. Abbott NV / SA

(Applicant) - Avenue Einstein 14 - B1300 -

Wavre - BE

  1. Abbott GmbH

(Applicant) - Max-Planck-Ring 2 - 65205 -

Wiesbaden - DE

  1. Abbott Laboratories

(Applicant) - 100 Abbott Park Road - 60064 -

Abbott Park, IL - US

  1. Abbott S.r.l.

(Applicant) - Viale Giorgio Ribotta 9 - 00144 -

Rome - IT

  1. Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag

(Applicant) - Hemvärnsgatan 9 - 17129 - Solna -

SE

  1. Abbott B.V.

(Applicant) - Postbus 727 - 2130AS - Hoofddorp

  • NL

    1. Abbott France
    1. Abbott Logistics B.V.

(Applicant) - c/o Abbott France, 40/48 rue d'Arcueil - 94593 - Rungis - FR

(Applicant) - Postbus 365 - 8000AJ - Zwolle - NL

    1. Abbott Diagnostics GmbH

(Applicant) - Max-Planck-Ring 2 - 65205 -

Wiesbaden - DE

    1. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

(Applicant) - 1360 South Loop Road - 94502 -

Alameda, CA - US

RESPONDENT

    1. DexCom, Inc.

6340 Sequence Drive - 92121 - San Diego,

CA - US

PATENT AT ISSUE

Patent no. Proprietor
EP3435866 DexCom, Inc.

DECIDING JUDGE

FULL PANEL

Presiding judge and Judge-rapporteur Legally qualified judge Legally qualified judge Rute Lopes Technically qualified judge

Camille Lignieres Carine Gillet

Alain Dumont

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English

POINTS AT ISSUE: Review by the panel pursuant to R. 333 RoP

ORDER

Summary of procedure and facts

On 13 and 14 November 2023, Abbott (hereinafter the 'Applicant', Defendant in the main proceedings) lodged on behalf of all the defendants a confidentiality Application under R. 262A and R. 262.2 RoP related to some information mentioned in their Statement of Defence (hereinafter 'SoD') dated 14 November 2023 in the infringement main proceedings (ACT_546446/2023) initiated by DexCom (hereinafter the 'Respondent', Claimant in the main proceedings).

An order was issued by the judge rapporteur on 19 December 2023 setting the modalities of the confidentiality club and in particular (point 6 of the order) the maximum amount of the fine in the event of a breach.

On 31 December 2023, the UPC Munich Local Division issued a confidentiality order in parallel proceedings between the same parties setting a fine in case of breach for an amount of up to 250.000 euros.

Abbott entities lodged on 3 January 2024 an application for a review by the panel pursuant to Rule 333 RoP regarding exclusively point 6 of said confidentiality order.

Parties' arguments

The Applicant objected to point 6 of the contested Order on the grounds that a similar order has been issued by the Judge-Rapporteur of the Munich Local Division in parallel proceedings, but with a discrepancy (although the confidential information protected was the same in both the Paris and Munich proceedings) between the order ruled by the Paris Local Division and the Munich Local Division order. The applicants requested that consistency be achieved between these two orders in the sense that the fine limit should be increased from EUR 50,000 to EUR 250,000.

The Applicant argued that this harmonisation should be made with the higher amount (the one of Munich's order) since in case of a major breach exceeding the value of 50.000 Euros, the 250.000 Euro threshold gives the court more flexibility and the Applicants/Appellants a more reliable guarantee of compliance with the confidentiality club. They argued that Dexcom Inc. is a major international company with significant financial resources such that the increase of the upper limit of the fee should not be an issue.

In response, Dexcom seeks the application for review to be dismissed, arguing that:

-the amount of 250.000 Euros is disproportionate, taking into account that the fine would have to be paid by individuals and not by the parties in case of a breach, and further given the fact that a large part of the called 'confidential information' has already been made accessible without any confidentiality restriction by the third applicant.

-the judge-rapporteur is free to set the fine that he/she deems appropriate and is not bound by other LD of the UPC.

The respondent adds that there is a potential risk of paying a double fine. Consequently, Dexcom proposes that if the court's panel decides to review point 6 of the confidentiality orders, the following amendment be made: '[i]n the event of a breach of the above orders, the Court may, upon request of the Applicants, impose a fine of up to € 50.000 for each single case of a breach, unless a fine has already been imposed in accordance with the order of 31 December 2023 taken by the Munich Local Division of the UPC pursuant to R. 262A RoP in the proceedings UPC CFI 233/2023.'

Grounds

-Concerning the need to harmonise the two similar orders:

The Court notes that, although the UPC Paris LD order of 19 November 2023 and the UPC Munich LD order of 31 December 2023 relate to the same protected confidential information, the two orders were ruled by two divisions in two different proceedings concerning different patents. In such circumstances, one division is not bound by a decision in another division despite belonging to the same unified court.

Therefore, the alleged need to harmonise the amount of the fine as requested by the Applicant is not justified.

-Concerning the appropriate maximum amount of the fine:

In principle, the judge rapporteur has to set an appropriate fine limit that is proportionate and sufficiently dissuasive to ensure that the parties comply with his/her decision.

In the contested order, the judge rapporteur considered the amount of the fine requested in the event of a breach of the confidentiality arrangements, i.e. up to EUR 250 000 for each individual case of breach, to be disproportionate, given that a significant part of the information had already been disclosed in the previous national proceedings in Germany.

The Court notes that the Judge-Rapporteur was justified in considering that part of the confidential information had already been disclosed without a confidentiality restriction and that a lower amount of the fine would sufficiently protect the legitimate interests of the parties in the event of a breach.

Therefore, a maximum fine amount of EUR 50,000 in case of breach is appropriate and proportionate in the contested confidentiality order and there is no need to set a higher maximum amount for the fine.

-Concerning the Dexcom's amendment:

In order to avoid the potential risk of a double fine, Dexcom requests a specific mention in the revised order as follows: "In the event of a breach of the above orders, the Court may, upon request of the Applicants, impose a fine of up to € 50.000 for each single case of a breach, unless a fine has already been imposed in accordance with the order of 31 December 2023 taken by the Munich Local Division of the UPC pursuant to R. 262A RoP in the proceedings UPC CFI 233/2023".

However, it will be at the Court's discretion, at the time of any breach, to decide on the appropriate amount of a fine to be paid, taking into account all elements in concreto , including any previous fine decided by the UPC Munich Local Division for the same breach.

There is no grounds to bind the Paris Local Division, in case of breach and as requested by Dexcom, in cases where the Munich Local Division has already imposed a fine.

Therefore, a need for such an amendment of the confidentiality order is not justified.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE - PARIS LOCAL DIVISION

Orders that:

-the request to review the Confidentiality order (point 6) of 19 November 2023 is dismissed.

Delivered in Paris, on 30 January 2024.

Camille Lignières, Presiding judge and judge rapporteur

Carine Gillet, Legally qualified judge

Rute Lopes, Legally qualified judge

Alain Dumont, Technically qualified judge

INFORMATION ABOUT APPEAL

The present Order may be appealable according to R. 220.2 RoP.

ORDER DETAILS

Procedural Order in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_546446/2023 UPC number: UPC_CFI_230/2023 Action type: Infringement Action Related proceeding: Application No. 253/2024 Application Type: Review R.333 Application

31 July, 2024
Order
ORD_36398/2024 Paris (FR) Local Div… EP3988471
R. 191 RoP
...

Please log in to add tags.

Please log in to add notes.

Please log in to add tags.

ORD_36398/2024
31 July, 2024
Order

Summary
(AI generated)

Parties

Dexcom France SAS,
Dexcom Inc.,
Dexcom International Limited,
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

Registry Information
Registry Number:

App_36267/2024

Court Division:

Paris (FR) Local Division

Type of Action:

Order Communicate Information

Language of Proceedings:

EN

Patent at issue

EP3988471

Sections

Headnotes (EN)

1. The request for disclosure of information on the basis of R.191 RoP may be admissible in ongoing proceedings and even before the existence of an infringement has been decided, should this be necessary for the investigation of the case at that stage of the proceedings. 2. The Court points out that a request for information under R.191 RoP must be sufficiently justified and proportionate in order to be granted. 3. The Court considers that the request under R.191 RoP is not sufficiently justified as the applicant fails to demonstrate that the requested information is reasonably necessary for the purpose of advancing that party’s case in accordance with Art. 67(1) UPCA and R. 191 RoP.

Keywords (EN)

Art. 67 UPCA, R.191 RoP
Cited Legal Standards
Art. 67(1) UPCA
R. 191 RoP
R.191 RoP
R. 333 RoP
Rule 190.1
Rule 191 para.
Rule 191 RoP
Add a custom note or summary to this decision
Styles
Text
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Bold ⌘B
Italic ⌘I
Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S
Bullet list
Ordered list
Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B
Insert link ⌘K
Insert link
Unlink
Align
Left
Center
Right
23 December, 2024
Order
ORD_67711/2024 Munich (DE) Local Di… EP1838002
R.265.2 (c) VerfO
...

Please log in to add tags.

Please log in to add notes.

Please log in to add tags.

ORD_67711/2024
23 December, 2024
Order

Summary
(AI generated)

Parties

Tesla Germany GmbH,
Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE

Registry Information
Registry Number:

App_66647/2024

Court Division:

Munich (DE) Local Division

Type of Action:

Application Rop 265

Language of Proceedings:

DE

Patent at issue

EP1838002

Sections

Headnotes (DE)

Der Rücknahmeantrag wird zugelassen. 2. Das Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren wird für beendet erklärt. 3. Diese Entscheidung ist in das Register einzutragen. 4. Jede Partei hat ihre eigenen Kosten im Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren zu tragen.

Keywords (DE)

Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren, Rücknahme, Regel 265 VerfO

Headnotes (EN)

1. The application to withdraw the action is permitted. 2. The proceedings for cost decision are closed. 3. This Order is to be entered on the register. 4. Each party is to bear its own costs in the proceedings for cost decision.

Keywords (EN)

proceedings for cost decision, withdrawal, Rule 265 RoP

Keywords (FR)

procédure en vue d’une décision relative aux frais, retrait, -
Cited Legal Standards
R. 265.2 (c) VerfO
R.265.2 (c) VerfO
Add a custom note or summary to this decision
Styles
Text
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Bold ⌘B
Italic ⌘I
Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S
Bullet list
Ordered list
Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B
Insert link ⌘K
Insert link
Unlink
Align
Left
Center
Right
12 August, 2024
Order
ORD_39223/2024 Vienna (AT) Local Di… EP2643717B1
R 262.1 (b) VerfO
...

Please log in to add tags.

Please log in to add notes.

Please log in to add tags.

ORD_39223/2024
12 August, 2024
Order

Summary
(AI generated)

Party

DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.

Registry Information
Registry Number:

App_36807/2024

Court Division:

Vienna (AT) Local Division

Type of Action:

Application RoP262.1 (b)

Language of Proceedings:

DE

Patent at issue

EP2643717B1

Sections

Headnotes (DE)

1. Wird ein Antrag auf Bereitstellung von Schriftsätzen und Beweismitteln von einem Mitglied der Öffentlichkeit gemäß R 262.1 (b) VerfO gestellt, müssen die Interessen dieses Mitglieds der Öffentlichkeit, einen Zugang zu den Schriftsätzen und Beweismitteln zu erhalten, gegen die in Art 45 EPGÜ genannten Interessen abgewogen werden. Zu diesen Interessen gehört der Schutz von vertraulichen Informationen und von personenbezogenen Daten ("das Interesse einer der Parteien oder anderer betroffener Personen"), sind aber nicht darauf beschränkt. Auch das allgemeine Interesse der Justiz und das der öffentlichen Ordnung müssen ebenfalls berücksichtigt werden. Zum allgemeinen Interesse der Justiz gehört der Schutz der Integrität des Verfahrens. 2. Dem Schutz der Integrität des Verfahrens kommt vor allem während dem anhängigen (=laufenden) Verfahren die größte Bedeutung zu, damit die Parteien ihre Argumente und Beweise vorbringen können, und das Gericht unparteiisch und unabhängig, ohne Einflussnahme und Einmischung von externen Parteien des öffentlichen Bereichs das Verfahren führen kann.

Keywords (DE)

Öffentlicher Zugang zu Schriftsätzen und Beweismittel; Schutz der Integrität des Verfahrens
Cited Legal Standards
Art 26 EPGÜ
Art 45 EPGÜ
Art 73 EPGÜ
R 220.2 VerfO
R 262.1 (b) VerfO
R. 262.1 (b) VerfO
R 262.1 lit b VerfO
R 262 Abs 1 lit b VerfO
R 262 VerfO
R 313.1 VerfO
R 350.5 351.3 VerfO
Add a custom note or summary to this decision
Styles
Text
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Bold ⌘B
Italic ⌘I
Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S
Bullet list
Ordered list
Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B
Insert link ⌘K
Insert link
Unlink
Align
Left
Center
Right
18 March, 2025
Order
ORD_69037/2024 Munich (DE) Local Di… EP3200463
Regel 19 Abs. 1 VerfO
...

Please log in to add tags.

Please log in to add notes.

Please log in to add tags.

ORD_69037/2024
18 March, 2025
Order

Summary
(AI generated)

Parties

Sun Patent Trust
v. Roku International B.V.,
Roku, Inc.

Registry Information
Registry Number:

App_47532/2024

Court Division:

Munich (DE) Local Division

Type of Action:

Preliminary objection

Language of Proceedings:

DE

Patent at issue

EP3200463

Sections

Headnotes (DE)

Die vermeintliche Unvereinbarkeit der Rechtsgrundlagen des EPG, insbesondere der Vorschriften des EPGÜ, mit den Erfordernissen des europäischen Primärrechts in Gestalt des EUV und des AEUV, und die vermeintlich draus folgende Ungültigkeit des EPGÜ ist kein Einspruchsgrund im Sinne der Regel 19 Abs. 1 VerfO. Ein Einspruch gemäß Regel 19 Abs. 1 VerfO kann auch nicht mit Erfolg auf einen etwaigen Verstoß gegen Art. 47 Abs. 2 EU-GRCh bzw. Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK gestützt werden. Hat ein Vertreter des Klägers in Bezug auf das Streitpatent den Rücktritt vom „Opt-out“ erklärt, ist es nicht erforderlich, dass der Kläger in bzw. mit der Klageschrift – von sich aus – die Vollmacht des Vertreters hinsichtlich des erklärten Rücktritts nachweist. Ein Nachweis ist nur bzw. erst im Falle des Bestreitens der Bevollmächtigung vorzulegen. Für die Annahme der Zuständigkeit ist nicht erforderlich, dass tatsächlich eine Verletzung erfolgt ist oder einzutreten droht. Im Rahmen der Zuständigkeitsprüfung genügt vielmehr die schlüssige Behauptung des Klägers, dass eine die Zuständigkeit begründende Verletzungshandlung stattgefunden hat und dass diese nicht von vornherein ausgeschlossen werden kann.

Keywords (DE)

Vertreter, Vollmacht, Rücktritt vom Opt-out, Rücktritt vom Opt-out, Grundrechtecharta, Zuständigkeit, Vereinbarkeit EPGÜ und AEUV, Einspruch, Darlegungslast, Opt-out, EUV

Headnotes (EN)

The alleged incompatibility of the legal bases of the UPC, in particular the provisions of the UPCA, with the requirements of European primary law in the form of the TEU and the TFEU, and the allegedly resulting invalidity of the UPCA, is not a ground for preliminary objection within the meaning of Rule 19 (1) RoP. A preliminary objection under Rule 19(1) RoP cannot be successfully based on an alleged violation of Article 47(2) EU CFR or Article 6(1) sentence 1 ECHR. If a representative of the Claimant has declared a withdrawal from the ‘opt-out’ concerning the patent at issue, it is not necessary for the Claimant to prove – on his own initiative – the representative's authorisation regarding the declared withdrawal in or with the Statement of claim. Proof must only be submitted in the event that the authorisation is contested. For the assumption of jurisdiction, it is not necessary that an infringement has actually occurred or is imminent. Rather, within the scope of the examination of jurisdiction, it is sufficient if the Claimant conclusively asserts that an infringing act establishing the jurisdiction has occurred and that it cannot be ruled out from the outset.

Keywords (EN)

representative , authorisation, Withdrawal of the opt-out , competence , Compatibility of the UPCA with the TFEU, preliminary objection , opt-out

Keywords (FR)

représentant , *_*, *_*, compétence , *_*, objection préliminaire , opt-out
Cited Legal Standards
Art. 1, 20, 21, 34 EPGÜ
Art. 20, 21 EPGÜ
Art. 21 EPGÜ
Art. 24 Abs. 1 (a) EPGÜ
Art. 2g) EPGÜ
Art. 31, 32, 33, 83 EPGÜ
Art. 31, 32, 83 EPGÜ
Art. 32 Abs. 1 a), 2g), 3c) EPGÜ
Art. 32 Abs. 1 (a), 33 Abs. 1 (a) EPGÜ
Art. 32 Abs. 1 (a) EPGÜ
Art. 32 Abs. 1 a) EPGÜ
Art. 32 Abs. 1 EPGÜ
Art. 33 Abs. 1 (a) EPGÜ
Art. 33 Abs. 1 (b) EPGÜ
Art. 33 Abs. 1 EPGÜ
Art. 33 Abs. 7 EPGÜ
Art. 33 EPGÜ
Art. 3c) EPGÜ
Art. 48 Abs. 1, 2 EPGÜ
Art. 48 EPGÜ
Art. 48 UPCA
Art. 68 EPGÜ
Art. 7 Abs. 2 EPGÜ
Art. 83 Abs. 1 EPGÜ
Art. 83 Abs. 3 EPGÜ
Art. 83 Abs. 4 EPGÜ
Art. 87 Abs. 2 EPGÜ
R. 266.1 VerfO
Regel 13.1 (i) VerfO
Regel 13 VerfO
Regel 19.1 (a) 20.1 VerfO
Regel 19.1 (a) VerfO
Regel 19.1 bis 19.3 VerfO
Regel 19.1 (b) VerfO
Regel 19.1 VerfO
Regel 19.7 VerfO
Regel 19 Abs. 1 VerfO
Regel 19 VerfO
Regel 20.1 VerfO
Regel 21.1 VerfO
Regel 220.2 VerfO
Regel 266 VerfO
Regel 285 VerfO
Regel 5.3 (b) (ii) VerfO
Regel 5.3 (b) (i) VerfO
Regel 5.3 VerfO
Regel 5.7 VerfO
Regel 8 VerfO
Add a custom note or summary to this decision
Styles
Text
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Bold ⌘B
Italic ⌘I
Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S
Bullet list
Ordered list
Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B
Insert link ⌘K
Insert link
Unlink
Align
Left
Center
Right
18 March, 2025
Order
ORD_69038/2024 Munich (DE) Local Di… EP3490258
Regel 19 Abs. 1 VerfO
...

Please log in to add tags.

Please log in to add notes.

Please log in to add tags.

ORD_69038/2024
18 March, 2025
Order

Summary
(AI generated)

Parties

Roku Inc,
Roku International B.V.
v. Dolby International AB

Registry Information
Registry Number:

App_45195/2024

Court Division:

Munich (DE) Local Division

Type of Action:

Preliminary objection

Language of Proceedings:

DE

Patent at issue

EP3490258

Sections

Headnotes (DE)

Die vermeintliche Unvereinbarkeit der Rechtsgrundlagen des EPG, insbesondere der Vorschriften des EPGÜ, mit den Erfordernissen des europäischen Primärrechts in Gestalt des EUV und des AEUV, und die vermeintlich draus folgende Ungültigkeit des EPGÜ ist kein Einspruchsgrund im Sinne der Regel 19 Abs. 1 VerfO. Ein Einspruch gemäß Regel 19 Abs. 1 VerfO kann auch nicht mit Erfolg auf einen etwaigen Verstoß gegen Art. 47 Abs. 2 EU-GRCh bzw. Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK gestützt werden. Für die Annahme der Zuständigkeit ist nicht erforderlich, dass tatsächlich eine Verletzung erfolgt ist oder einzutreten droht. Im Rahmen der Zuständigkeitsprüfung genügt vielmehr die schlüssige Behauptung des Klägers, dass eine die Zuständigkeit begründende Verletzungshandlung stattgefunden hat und dass diese nicht von vornherein ausgeschlossen werden kann.

Keywords (DE)

Darlegungslast, Zuständigkeit, Darlegungslast, EUV, AEUV, Einspruch, Vereinbarkeit EPGÜ und AEUV

Headnotes (EN)

The alleged incompatibility of the legal bases of the UPC, in particular the provisions of the UPCA, with the requirements of European primary law in the form of the TEU and the TFEU, and the allegedly resulting invalidity of the UPCA, is not a ground for preliminary objection within the meaning of Rule 19 (1) RoP. A preliminary objection under Rule 19(1) RoP cannot be successfully based on an alleged violation of Article 47(2) EU CFR or Article 6(1) sentence 1 ECHR. If a representative of the Claimant has declared a withdrawal from the ‘opt-out’ concerning the patent at issue, it is not necessary for the Claimant to prove – on his own initiative – the representative's authorisation regarding the declared withdrawal in or with the Statement of claim. Proof must only be submitted in the event that the authorisation is contested.

Keywords (EN)

Burden of proof , Jurisdiction, TEU, TFEU, Preliminary objection, Compatibility of the UPCA with the TFEU

Keywords (FR)

*_*, compétence , *_*, *_*, objection préliminaire , *_*
Cited Legal Standards
Art. 1, 20, 21, 34 EPGÜ
Art. 20, 21 EPGÜ
Art. 21 EPGÜ
Art. 24 Abs. 1 (a) EPGÜ
Art. 31, 32, 33, 83 EPGÜ
Art. 31, 32, 83 EPGÜ
Art. 32 Abs. 1 (a), 33 Abs. 1 (a) EPGÜ
Art. 32 Abs. 1 (a) EPGÜ
Art. 32 Abs. 1 a) EPGÜ
Art. 33 Abs. 1 (a) EPGÜ
Art. 33 Abs. 1 (b) EPGÜ
Art. 33 Abs. 1 EPGÜ
Art. 33 Abs. 7 EPGÜ
Art. 33 EPGÜ
Art. 3c) EPGÜ
Art. 68 EPGÜ
Art. 7 Abs. 2 EPGÜ
Art. 87 Abs. 2 EPGÜ
R. 266.1 VerfO
Regel 13.1 (i) VerfO
Regel 19.1 (a) 20.1 VerfO
Regel 19.1 (a) VerfO
Regel 19.1 bis 19.3 VerfO
Regel 19.1 (b) VerfO
Regel 19.1 VerfO
Regel 19 Abs. 1 VerfO
Regel 19 VerfO
Regel 20.1 VerfO
Regel 21.1 VerfO
Regel 220.2 VerfO
Regel 266 VerfO
Add a custom note or summary to this decision
Styles
Text
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Bold ⌘B
Italic ⌘I
Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S
Bullet list
Ordered list
Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B
Insert link ⌘K
Insert link
Unlink
Align
Left
Center
Right
3 March, 2025
Order
ORD_8385/2025 Paris (FR) Central D… EP2671173
Rule 361
...

Please log in to add tags.

Please log in to add notes.

Please log in to add tags.

ORD_8385/2025
3 March, 2025
Order

Summary
(AI generated)

Parties

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
v. Microsoft Corporation

Registry Information
Registry Number:

ORD_8385/2025

Court Division:

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat

Type of Action:

Generic Order

Language of Proceedings:

EN

Patent at issue

EP2671173

Sections

Headnotes (EN)

1. Should the Court determine that a party's representative is unable to validly represent said party and grant the latter a period within which to appoint a new representative, it may require that such appointment be accompanied by a statement of ratification by the new representative of the actions undertaken by the representative lacking valid representative powers.

Keywords (EN)

representatives
Cited Legal Standards
Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA
Rule 262
Rule 361
Add a custom note or summary to this decision
Styles
Text
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Bold ⌘B
Italic ⌘I
Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S
Bullet list
Ordered list
Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B
Insert link ⌘K
Insert link
Unlink
Align
Left
Center
Right
3 September, 2024
Decision
ORD_42716/2024 Luxembourg (LU) EP2479680
Art. 26 EPGÜ
...

Please log in to add tags.

Please log in to add notes.

Please log in to add tags.

ORD_42716/2024
3 September, 2024
Decision

Summary
(AI generated)

Parties

AYLO FREESITES LTD,
AYLO Billing Limited,
AYLO PREMIUM LTD
v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.,
Sling TV L.L.C.

Registry Information
Registry Number:

APL_21943/2024

Court Division:

Luxembourg (LU)

Type of Action:

Appeal RoP220.2

Language of Proceedings:

DE

Patent at issue

EP2479680

Sections

Headnotes (DE)

1) Art. 7 Abs. 2 in Verbindung mit Art. 71b Abs. 1 der Verordnung Brüssel Ia ist dahin auszulegen, dass das EPG für eine Verletzungsklage international zuständig ist, wenn das vom Kläger geltend gemachte europäische Patent in mindestens einem Vertragsmitgliedstaat Wirkung entfaltet und der behauptete Schaden in diesem Vertragsmitgliedstaat eintreten kann. Wird behauptet, dass der Schaden über das Internet verursacht worden sei, kann sich die Wahrscheinlichkeit eines solchen Schadens aus der Möglichkeit ergeben, Produkte zu erwerben und/oder Dienstleistungen von einer Internetseite in Anspruch zu nehmen, die im Hoheitsgebiet des Vertragsmitgliedstaats, in dem das europäische Patent Wirkung entfaltet, zugänglich ist. 2) Die Bestimmung des Ortes, an dem das schädigende Ereignis eingetreten ist oder einzutreten droht, im Sinne von Art. 7 Abs. 2 der Verordnung Brüssel Ia hängt nicht von Kriterien ab, die in dieser Bestimmung nicht vorkommen und die für die Prüfung in der Sache spezifisch sind, wie etwa die Voraussetzungen für die Feststellung einer mittelbaren Patentverletzung im Sinne von Art. 26 EPGÜ. 3) Der Ort, an dem „die tatsächliche oder drohende Verletzung erfolgt ist oder möglicherweise erfolgen wird“ im Sinne von Art. 33(1)(a) EPGÜ ist in gleicher Weise auszulegen wie der Ort, „an dem das schädigende Ereignis eingetreten ist oder einzutreten droht“ in Art. 7 Abs. 2 der Verordnung Brüssel Ia in Bezug auf angebliche Patentverletzungen ausgelegt wird. 4) Die Liste der Einsprüche in R. 19.1 VerfO ist als abschließend zu betrachten. Die Anwendung der R. 19 bis 21 VerfO kann sich daher nicht über andere Erwiderungen wie missbräuchliches Verhalten im Verfahren und offensichtliche Unbegründetheit erstrecken.

Keywords (DE)

Einsprüche, Berufung, Zuständigkeit einer Kammer, Internationale Zuständigkeit, Parallelverfahren vor einem nationalen Gericht
Cited Legal Standards
Art. 26 EPGÜ
Art. 26 UPCA
Art. 31 EPGÜ
Art. 31 UPCA
Art. 32(1)(a) EPGÜ
Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA
Art. 32(1) EPGÜ
Art. 32(1) UPCA
Art. 33(1)(a) EPGÜ
Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA
R. 19.1(a) Rules Procedure
R. 19.1(b) RoP
R. 19.1(b) VerfO
R. 19.1 in conjunction with R. 361 RoP
R. 19.1 in Verbindung mit R. 361 VerfO
R. 19.1 RoP
R. 19.1 VerfO
R 19.7 RoP
R. 19.7 VerfO
R. 19 bis 21 VerfO
R. 19 RoP
R. 19 to 21 RoP
R. 19 VerfO
R. 20.1 RoP
R 20.1 VerfO
R. 20.1 VerfO
R. 21 RoP
R. 21 VerfO
R. 222.2 RoP
R. 222.2 VerfO
R. 23 et seq. RoP
R. 23 ff. VerfO
R. 271.6(b) RoP
R. 271.6(b) VerfO
R. 332(b) (d) R. 334(d), (e) (g) RoP
R. 332(b) (d) R. 334(d), (e) (g) VerfO
R. 361 RoP
R. 361 VerfO
Add a custom note or summary to this decision
Styles
Text
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Bold ⌘B
Italic ⌘I
Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S
Bullet list
Ordered list
Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B
Insert link ⌘K
Insert link
Unlink
Align
Left
Center
Right
11 February, 2025
Order
ORD_68946/2024 Luxembourg (LU) EP2671173
R 220.2 RoP
...

Please log in to add tags.

Please log in to add notes.

Please log in to add tags.

ORD_68946/2024
UPC_CoA_563/2024
11 February, 2025
Order

Summary
(AI generated)

Parties

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
v. Microsoft Corporation

Registry Information
Registry Number:

APL_53716/2024

Court Division:

Luxembourg (LU)

Type of Action:

Appeal RoP220.2

Language of Proceedings:

EN

Patent at issue

EP2671173

Cited Legal Standards
Art. 1(2) UPCA
Art. 32(1)(i) UPCA
Art. 32(1) UPCA
Art. 48 (1) (2) (5) UPCA
Art. 48(1) (2) UPCA
Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA
Art. 48(1) UPCA
Art. 48(2) UPCA
Art. 48(5) (6) UPCA
Art. 48(5) UPCA
Art. 48(7) UPCA
Art. 48 UPCA
Art. 49(5) UPCA
R 220.2 RoP
R. 222.1 2 RoP
R. 262A RoP
R. 287.1 2 RoP
R. 287.1 RoP
R. 287.2 RoP
R. 287 to 292 RoP
R. 288.1 RoP
R. 290.2 RoP
R. 291.1 RoP
R. 291 RoP
R 333 RoP
R. 333 RoP
R 333 ROP
R. 36 RoP
R. 8.1 RoP
R. 9.3 RoP
Rule 222.2
Add a custom note or summary to this decision
Styles
Text
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Bold ⌘B
Italic ⌘I
Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S
Bullet list
Ordered list
Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B
Insert link ⌘K
Insert link
Unlink
Align
Left
Center
Right
15 November, 2024
Decision
ORD_598479/2023 Munich (DE) Local Di… EP3646825
R. 295(c)(i) or (m) RoP
...

Please log in to add tags.

Please log in to add notes.

Please log in to add tags.

ORD_598479/2023
15 November, 2024
Decision

Summary
(AI generated)

Parties

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.,
Meril Gmbh

Registry Information
Registry Number:

ACT_459987/2023

Court Division:

Munich (DE) Local Division

Type of Action:

Infringement Action

Language of Proceedings:

EN

Patent at issue

EP3646825

Sections

Headnotes (EN)

1. The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction over acts of infringement committed before the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court on 1 June 2023. This is in line with Article 3(c) and 32(1)(a) UPCA, in the absence of any conflicting intertemporal provisions. 2. The claimant's choice among the potentially competent German local divisions will ultimately determine the competence of the chosen German local division. 3. In accordance with Article 32(3b) of the UPCA, a referral of the counterclaim for revocation to the central division and a continuation of the action for infringement may be made following a decision to this effect. Once the central division has delivered its ruling and upheld the patent in an amended form, a stay of the action for infringement may be based exclusively on R. 295(c)(i) or (m) RoP. 4. In both instances, the court is at liberty to exercise its discretion as to or not to grant a stay, respectively. In the context of a prior bifurcation decision where the patent had been upheld, the possibility of a stay is limited to instances where there are attenuating circumstances. This is because the agreement explicitly stipulates the possibility for a local or regional division to bifurcate and to stay or not to stay the action for infringement. Consequently, a decision on the infringement action is possible prior to the central division's resolution of the counterclaim referred to it. Subsequent to a decision by the central division on the referred counterclaim, the local or regional division is required to proceed with the next case management step which regularly is a decision on the action for infringement. There are only a few instances in which one might deviate from this default next case management step. These instances occur when the aggrieved party can demonstrate that the decision made by the central division is manifestly and prima facie erroneous in a formal and/or material way. 5. Art. 34 UPCA stipulates that injunctive relief, and other corrective measures can be ordered with respect to all contracting member states where the European Patent has effect and for which a decision of the Court has been requested as long as an infringing act or the danger of first infringement has been proven for at least one contracting member state. 6. In regard of procedures for implementing corrective measures, Article 64(4) of the UPCA explicitly mentions the interests of third parties. While the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court do not explicitly mention the interests of third parties or the public otherwise, these interests may be considered when exercising the discretion stipulated by the "may" in Articles 64(4), A. 63(1) and 64(1) UPCA, respectively. 7. In considering the interests of third parties and the public interest, the court will give due consideration to the possibility of the infringer entering into a license agreement or initiating proceedings for a mandatory license. If proceedings for the issuance of a mandatory license have been initiated, the court shall duly consider the outcome thereof. 8. Although a defendant might be regarded as an unwilling licensee, the Court may nevertheless find that the public interest must be considered as members of the public regularly have no possibility to influence the defendant`s behaviour and still might face serious consequences if access to the attacked embodiment was denied. 9. Those public needs can be adequately addressed through a mechanism which enables individual members of the public to request a single-use licence.

Keywords (EN)

Jurisdiction on infringing acts before 1 June 2023, public interest, jurisdiction of the German local divisions, third parties` interests, mechanism to address public needs, Art. 34 UPCA, decision on infringement after bifurcation, no stay according to R. 295(c)(i) or (m) RoP
Cited Legal Standards
Art. 34 UPCA
Art. 56 (1) UPCA
Art. 56(1) UPCA
Art. 63 (2) UPCA
Art. 64 (2) (a) UPCA
Art. 64 (3) UPCA
Art. 68 UPCA
Art. 69 (1) UPCA
Art. 73(1) UPCA
Art. 80 UPCA
R. 118.1 RoP
R 118.2 (a) RoP
R. 118.2 (a) RoP
R. 118.8, 158.2, 354, 355.4 ROP
R. 119 RoP
R. 19.1(a) RoP
R. 19.1(b) RoP
R. 191 RoP
R. 220.1(a), 224.1(a) RoP
R 263.1 RoP
R 284 RoP
R. 295(c)(i) or (m) RoP
R 295(c)(i) RoP
R. 295(c)(i) RoP
R. 295(e), R. 37.4 RoP
R 295(m) court may stay in any o r case where prop
R 295.m RoP
R. 295(m) RoP
R 350.4 RoP
R 352.2 RoP
R 354.1 RoP
R 354.3 RoP
R 37.4 RoP
Rule 105.5 RoP
Rule 19.1(a) RoP
Rule 20.2 RoP
Rule 302 RoP
Add a custom note or summary to this decision
Styles
Text
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Bold ⌘B
Italic ⌘I
Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S
Bullet list
Ordered list
Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B
Insert link ⌘K
Insert link
Unlink
Align
Left
Center
Right
Showing 1 to 10 of 1000 results
Subscription required
To use more advanced filters, you need an active subscription.